Showing posts with label 2012 ELECTION. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2012 ELECTION. Show all posts

October 22, 2012

IT WAS CLOSE, AND IT'S STILL CLOSE



Presidential Debate


NATE SILVER

The bad news for President Obama: it’s been almost a week since the second presidential debate, in Hempstead, N.Y., one that instant-reaction polls said was a narrow victory for him. But there is little sign that this has translated into a bounce for Mr. Obama in his head-to-head polls against Mitt Romney. Instead, the presidential race may have settled into a period of relative stability.
There is bad news for Mr. Romney as well, however. The “new normal” of the presidential campaign is considerably more favorable for him than the environment before the first debate, in Denver. However, it is one in which he still seems to be trailing, by perhaps 2 percentage points, in the states that are most vital in the Electoral College.
The FiveThirtyEight forecast was essentially unchanged again on Sunday, with Mr. Obama retaining a 67.6 percent chance of winning the Electoral College, little different from his 67.9 percent odds on Friday and Saturday.

And from The Washington Post

The debates have been a draw: Roughly half of the NBC-WSJ sample (47 percent) said the two presidential debates had made no difference in how they would vote, and roughly the same number said they made them more likely to back Romney (27 percent) and Obama (24 percent). Need more evidence that debates may be much ado about nothing? In 2004, roughly one in three voters said the debates made them more likely to back Kerry, while just 13 percent said the same of Bush. And we know how that one turned out.

October 9, 2012

The post-debate campaign: What’s changed and what hasn’t





Chris Cillizza writes a superb daily political analysis at The Washington Post. Here is his overview of the Presidential election post-first debate. :

Many political observers have taken to dating this campaign in terms of “BD” (“before debate”) and AD (“after debate”), believing that President Obama’s lackluster performance in the first general election debate has fundamentally altered the course of the race.

And judging from new national polling from Pew and Gallup, there is some evidence to suggest that the race has shifted — with former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney making up ground rapidly.
Before we draw too many conclusions about the state of the race, however, it’s important to remember that 10 days ago, the political world was on death watch for the Romney campaign. Yes, things can change fast — and some dynamics of the contest clearly have. But there are other things that haven’t changed too.

What’s Changed

* Republicans are excited about Romney: Until the first presidential debate, the Romney vote was roughly 80 percent anti-Obama, 20 percent pro-Romney. The enthusiasm gains among Republicans in the post-debate Pew survey suggest that Republicans now feel as though they have a reason to vote for Romney, not just against Obama. That matters; people like to feel as they are casting an affirmative vote for their guy; John Kerry’s loss in 2004 was due, at least in part, to his struggle to articulate a message beyond “I’m not George W. Bush”.

* The national race is close: Put aside all of the arguments — and they are legion — about how, when and why these last national polls were conducted, and you are left with an obvious reality: At the national level, the Obama-Romney contest is a statistical dead heat. And that shouldn’t be surprising. After a slew of national polls in mid-to-late September showed Obama with a high-single-digit/low-double-digit lead, the race had begun to tighten in other data on the eve of the debate last week. Given that almost every objective source saw the debate as a Romney victory, some movement nationally toward Romney makes sense.

* Romney is re-energized: Don’t underestimate how hard it is to keep slogging through campaign stop after campaign stop with a smile on your face when you known things aren’t going well for you. That was Romney’s life from the moment Clint Eastwood (and his chair) took the stage at the Republican National Convention until last Wednesday night. But now the narrative has changed and, with it, Romney’s demeanor and the coverage he is getting. Now we are seeing the softer side of Romney stories. The candidate is delivering forceful condemnations of the Obama foreign policy. Heck, he even looks like he is having fun speaking in the rain.

* The vice presidential debate could matter: We’ve long been skeptical that vice presidential debates (or vice presidential picks) matter much. (How many people make their mind up about the election because of the guy standing next to the guy?) But, politics, like sports, tends to work on momentum. And right now Romney has it — big time. If Rep. Paul Ryan delivers a winning performance at the VP debate Thursday night, the GOP enthusiasm/excitement will just continue to build. If, on the other hand, Vice President Biden — a decidedly underrated debater — puts in a strong performance, it could snuff out (or at least slow) the current Republican momentum.

What Hasn’t Changed
* Obama’s electoral vote edge: Let’s assume that the national poll bump for Romney starts to trickle down into some critical swing states. (It should.) For the sake of argument, say that Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Virginia all move toward Romney — and he winds up winning them as well as all of the more reliably Republican states leaning or solidly in his camp today. He still loses the electoral vote to Obama. We’ve written extensively about this often-overlooked reality in recent months but it’s worth reiterating again: Even if Romney surges in a handful of swing states, his path to 270 electoral votes remains tough. For Romney to win at this point — assuming he can’t put Michigan, Pennsylvania or Wisconsin play — he needs to all but sweep the remaining toss-up states.

* The Obama team isn’t dumb: When times are good, the candidate and his/her campaign are geniuses. When times are bad, they are idiots. Neither characterization is accurate. What we know about Obama and his team is that they have ousted Hillary Clinton in a primary, won a sweeping electoral landslide in 2008 and, until last Wednesday, run an effective campaign that had put the incumbent very clearly in the driver’s seat. All of the smart strategy that went into those accomplishments hasn’t disappeared suddenly. Yes, Obama laid a major egg at the debate. But to assume that the campaign has somehow forgotten what got them to where they are because of one bad debate performance is a major mistake.

[For example:]
The Obama campaign is up with a light-hearted new ad hitting Romney for wanting to end federal funding for public broadcasting. The ad features convicted corporate titans like Bernie Madoff and says, tongue in cheek, that Big Bird is the bird who oversaw it all.
“Mitt Romney knows it’s not Wall Street you have to worry about; it’s Sesame Street,” the narrator says. The ad plays off a line Obama has used on the campaign trail juxtaposing Romney’s plans for Wall Street versus Sesame Street.]

* Money, money, money: Lost amid the post-debate coverage was the fact that Obama and the Democratic National Committee raised $181 million in September, an eye-popping total that will almost certainly eclipse what Romney and the Republican National Committee collected over that same time period. What Obama’s massive haul means is that the expectation that he will be badly outspent by Romney and his allies over the final days of the campaign could well be wrong. While we still expect the combination of Romney, RNC and outside conservative groups to outspend Obama, DNC and outside liberal groups on TV in the final 60 days, it won’t be by a three- or even four-to-one margin. And that matters. Money talks, after all.

October 5, 2012

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE DIPS BELOW 8%

The nation’s unemployment rate dropped below 8 percent in September to its lowest rate since the month President Obama took office, the Labor Department said Friday.
While employers added only a modest 114,000 jobs last month, the jobless rate declined to 7.8 percent from 8.1 percent, even though more people entered the labor force.
Adding to the positive news, job gains were revised upward by 40,000 for July (to 181,000) and by 46,000 for August (to 142,000), which had been considered a disappointing month, casting a slightly rosier hue on the summer slowdown.
The private sector, which has been adding jobs since March 2010, grew by 104,000 workers in September. Governments, where cuts have been a drag on the recovery, added 10,000 jobs.
Manufacturing, one of the bright spots that Mr. Obama has showcased throughout the re-election campaign, fell 16,000 jobs after losing a revised 22,000 in August, and construction jobs grew by 5,000. The number of temporary jobs, usually considered a harbinger of future growth, fell 2,000.
Coming a month before the presidential election, the lower jobless rate was a clear gain for the incumbent

October 4, 2012

ROMNEY WINS FIRST DEBATE


Mitt Romney and President Obama squared off in a debate on Wednesday night.



, Thursday, October 4, 12:56 AM, Washington Post

After many months of awkward moments and shifting campaign messages, Mitt Romney forcefully and confidently stood alongside President Obama and offered an alternative economic vision to what he called Obama’s “trickle-down government approach.”

The two contenders seemed to swap roles Wednesday. Obama was the one who struggled for his footing, scowling on the split screens of millions of television viewers across the nation and often looking like a man who wished he were elsewhere.

Romney came to the debate at the University of Denver with a heavy set of goals, chief of which was to regain ground on the economy. That issue is uppermost among voter concerns and the one that Romney believes provides his greatest advantage.

Romney pressed his case against Obama’s stewardship of a disappointingly weak recovery. He sought to sharpen his own proposals and to soften the perception among voters that he favors the interests of the wealthy over those who are struggling.

“The people who are having the hard time right now are middle-income Americans. Under the president’s policies, middle-income Americans have been buried,” Romney said, echoing a damaging phrase that Vice President Biden used the day before to describe the status of average Americans over the past four years.

Obama, meanwhile, did not make many of the arguments that he and his campaign have used most effectively against Romney. He did not recount the former governor’s career in private equity, during which Romney laid off workers, or the secretly taped video in which the Republican nominee told wealthy donors that the 47 percent of Americans who do not pay federal income taxes are dependent on government and see themselves as victims.

The president also left many of Romney’s claims unchallenged. Romney asserted eight times that Obama plans to cut $716 billion from Medicare without noting that the Republican vice presidential nominee, Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.), shepherded a budget through the House that would do the same thing.

The central premise of the Republican nominee’s campaign has been that voters, disillusioned with Obama’s performance in reviving economic growth, would turn to Romney, who promotes the expertise and experience he gained in the corporate world.

But with less than five weeks to go before Election Day, Romney has been struggling to make a convincing case for himself on that score — and is running about even with Obama on who would better handle the economy.

Where Romney held a seven-point edge over the president on that question among registered voters in an August Washington Post-ABC News poll, the latest survey shows them tied, with 47 percent saying Romney would do a better job and the same proportion opting for Obama.

Meanwhile, the president continues to hold a double-digit advantage when voters are asked which of the two candidates better understands the economic problems people in this country are having. In the most recent poll, 52 percent said it was Obama, while only 39 percent named Romney.

The first debate, which history suggests will draw the biggest audience, amounted to Romney’s best opportunity to change a political dynamic that has been moving against him.

In this deeply polarized country, the number of people who are truly wavering in their choice is relatively small. And those who are probably were not among the tens of millions who tuned into the debate, said AFL-CIO political director Michael Podhorzer.

By and large, “they are undecided because those people are not checked into the election,” Podhorzer said. “They’re paying attention to the coverage of the debate and they’re paying attention to what their friends are saying.”

And in an era when so much of the national dialogue takes place on social media, “inevitably some moments will live on in YouTube,” he added.

September 23, 2012

A LETTER FROM ANN ROMNEY

FROM the New Yorker

September 21, 2012

A Letter from Ann Romney



boro.jpg

NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report)—The Borowitz Report has obtained the following confidential letter from Ann Romney to members of the Republican Party:
Dear Fellow-Republican,
I’m not a happy camper.
Over the past few days, some so-called Republicans have taken it upon themselves to lob some pretty harsh words in the direction of my husband. Now, it’s one thing when Mitt gets criticized by the forty-seven per cent of Americans who are parasites sucking at capitalism’s teat. But when former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan calls his campaign “a rolling calamity,” it’s time for Ann Romney to kick some ass.


Which brings me to you. This is not a fundraising appeal. Lord knows this campaign has all the money it needs, especially since Mitt went to Vegas and promised Sheldon Adelson he’d bomb Tehran on Day One. As Mitt’s wife, I’m asking you to pledge something far more valuable:

Your silence.

By signing the pledge form below, you become an official member of Ann Romney’s Circle of Silence, an élite tier of the Romney for President Campaign. As a member of the C.O.S., you will receive priority ticketing to the Inauguration, as well as a collectible “Loose Lips Sink Mitt” ball gag.

All you have to do is shut the freak up until Election Day.

That’s right, for the next forty-six days, I’m asking you to bite your tongue every time Mitt says or does something idiotic. If you think that sounds difficult, welcome to my world.

And Peggy Noonan, if you’re reading this: you want a piece of Ann Romney? Then get in the ring, girlfriend, and I’ll mess you up good.

Vote for Mitt,

Ann

Photograph by Lauren Lancaster.


Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2012/09/a-letter-from-ann-romney.html#ixzz27GjHi5CJ

September 18, 2012

ROMNEY: THERE HE GOES AGAIN

FROM the New Yorker

September 21, 2012

A Letter from Ann Romney



boro.jpg

NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report)—The Borowitz Report has obtained the following confidential letter from Ann Romney to members of the Republican Party:
Dear Fellow-Republican,
I’m not a happy camper.
Over the past few days, some so-called Republicans have taken it upon themselves to lob some pretty harsh words in the direction of my husband. Now, it’s one thing when Mitt gets criticized by the forty-seven per cent of Americans who are parasites sucking at capitalism’s teat. But when former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan calls his campaign “a rolling calamity,” it’s time for Ann Romney to kick some ass.


Which brings me to you. This is not a fundraising appeal. Lord knows this campaign has all the money it needs, especially since Mitt went to Vegas and promised Sheldon Adelson he’d bomb Tehran on Day One. As Mitt’s wife, I’m asking you to pledge something far more valuable:

Your silence.

By signing the pledge form below, you become an official member of Ann Romney’s Circle of Silence, an élite tier of the Romney for President Campaign. As a member of the C.O.S., you will receive priority ticketing to the Inauguration, as well as a collectible “Loose Lips Sink Mitt” ball gag.

All you have to do is shut the freak up until Election Day.

That’s right, for the next forty-six days, I’m asking you to bite your tongue every time Mitt says or does something idiotic. If you think that sounds difficult, welcome to my world.

And Peggy Noonan, if you’re reading this: you want a piece of Ann Romney? Then get in the ring, girlfriend, and I’ll mess you up good.

Vote for Mitt,

Ann

Photograph by Lauren Lancaster.


Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2012/09/a-letter-from-ann-romney.html#ixzz27GjHi5CJ

September 9, 2012

WILL THE REAL MITT ROMNEY PLEASE STAND UP

from London Review of Books (via Book Forum)

Eliot Weinberger is British, and it shows in, what can only be called the arrogant overconfidence with which he concludes his otherwise brilliant sum-up of Mitt Romney, and the Rebooblican party in 2012. Esco brackets his opinions re Weinberger's assumptions when Weinberger states them at the end of the piece. Which brings us to the DISCLAIMER: The photos, and written material in this piece, unless specifically stated otherwise, i.e.[placed in brackets,] are not my own. The bracketed writings are annotations or comments by esco20 inserted to express the opinion of esco20 . No infringement is intended and any media used is not for commercial purposes.





Poor Mitt. He became the Republican candidate for president by default, as the least worst choice from a pack of bizarre characters seemingly drawn from reality TV shows or Thomas Pynchon novels, but he’s not finding much love, even at his own coronation. Only 27 per cent of Americans think that he’s a ‘likeable’ guy. (Obama gets 61 per cent.) On television he projects a strange combination of self-satisfaction and an uneasiness about dealing with others who might doubt his unerring rectitude. The only well-known anecdotes about his bland life of acquiring wealth are both cruel: leading a pack of bullies at his prep school, personally cutting off the long hair of a weeping and pleading gay student, and putting the family dog in a box on the roof of his car for a twelve-hour drive to Canada. (His five sons knew something was wrong when they saw diarrhoea streaming down the back window.) Even Ann Romney, given the task of ‘humanising’ Mitt on the opening night of the Republican convention, couldn’t come up with a single warm or amusing story from their 43 years of marriage. One commentator has compared him to Prince Charles at a welcoming ceremony in New Guinea: he maintains a fixed half-smile, but has no idea what the natives are getting excited about.

Americans value sincerity, above all, in their presidential candidates, regardless of opinions on specific issues. Obama, Bush Jr, Bill Clinton, Reagan all appeared to mean what they say. Failed candidates (Hillary Clinton, McCain, Kerry, Gore, Bush Sr) were all too obviously reversing or avoiding long-held beliefs to pander to the various voting constituencies. But Romney is more than merely insincere. He seems to be a hologram programmed by whatever audience he is addressing at that moment. With an expression as impenetrable as Andy Warhol’s, he is reminiscent of the Warhol who once told an interviewer: ‘Just tell me what to say.’ He is the simulacrum of a candidate: many have noticed his uncanny resemblance to the extraterrestrials in 1950s movies who take on human form.

Republican dogma forces him to rail against the Obama health plan, but sometimes he can’t help but brag about the success of the identical health plan he instituted as governor of Massachusetts. He has subscribed to every possible variation in the medieval theological debate over abortion, and contradicts himself, sometimes on the same day, on economic details. He was at his most Romneyesque when, denouncing gay marriage he said: ‘I agree with 3000 years [sic] of recorded history … Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman.’ He was not only erasing his former support of gay rights, but his own recorded history: his great-great-grandfather had twelve wives and his great-grandfather five, and his father was born in a colony of renegade Mormon polygamists in Mexico.

Romney is so inordinately proud of his enormous wealth, which he mentions at every opportunity, that he apparently assumed it would command unquestioned respect from the masses. He’s been actively running for president for six years, but – even to the amazement of Fox News – it never occurred to him that it might not be terribly appealing to American voters that a potential president hoards his millions in the tax shelters of Switzerland and the Cayman Islands. Or that an election year in the midst of an economic recession might not be the moment to spend $12 million renovating his beach house in California, complete with an elevator for his cars. Or that perhaps his wife should have been encouraged to take up another hobby besides $400,000 dressage horses.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the end, the Romney-Ryan ticket is running on a single platform: ‘We’re the white guys.’ White people, in the next few decades, will become a minority in the USA. (2011 was the first year in which the majority of babies born were non-white.) Obama is the most visible sign of this inevitable future and there is no doubt that it is race that has led Republicans to oppose everything Obama supports (even if they supported it the week before). Sixty-four per cent of Republicans still believe that Obama was born in Kenya – Romney likes to joke that no one ever asks him for his birth certificate. Thirty-four per cent of conservatives think Obama is a Muslim. The continual Republican refrain is that ‘Obama doesn’t understand America’ or even ‘Obama hates America.’

....In Tampa, the Republicans managed to put some minority speakers on the stage – most notably Condoleezza Rice – but the crowd in the hall itself was a sea of milk. Nationally, the Republicans are 90 per cent white.
Cover photo


Demographics are shrinking the Republican Party,... Republicans don’t seem to know that the world has changed. The new generations simply don’t object to the social issues – mainly abortion and gay marriage – with which the Party used to rally the troops. Most people, living through last July, the hottest month in recorded history, believe that global warming exists....Above all, in one of the strangest reversals in American politics,...The Republicans have been largely taken over by people who, not very many years ago, were considered the lunatic fringe.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...nearly everyone agrees the cause is hopeless, [Everyone, perhaps, who doesn't live in America. The polls only give Obama a slight edge, one that can easily disappear in a volatile, economically depressed country. Anything can go wrong. The mainstream media is on the mark by constantly warning its viewers and readers how close the race is, and how easily the lead can change hands.] despite the hundreds of millions of dollars that Romney will spend for television advertising, paid for by a handful of billionaires. The convention in Tampa was notable for the spectacle of the young Alpha-males, vying for dominance in the 2016 elections. But, in the end, it will only be remembered for the sight of a dishevelled Clint Eastwood in an ill-fitting suit, mumbling to an empty chair.


September 8, 2012

CLINTON'S GREAT SPEECH

clinton-teleprompter-speech.jpg

The nominating speech by Bill Clinton, I think it will go down in history as one of the great political speeches of the past 100 years. Congratulations Mr. Clinton, and thank you. But, don't take Esco's word for it, here's Hendrik Hertzberg in The New Yorker:

(from The New Yorker) :

Born to Run: Hendrik Hertzberg on Bill Clinton’s speech at the D.N.C.:

http://nyr.kr/Nf7uLq
(Source: newyorker.com)
"In its intensity, in the palpable love between performer and audience, in its passion, in its earnestness, in its straightforwardness—in its politics, even!—this was the rhetorical equivalent of a Bruce Springsteen concert."

Clinton’s speech—which, especially if President Obama is reëlected, will be remembered as one of the greatest tours de force in convention history.

Clinton’s speech unfolded like a symphony in three movements—or, better, a jazz oratorio. He started with a summary that combined homespun values with to-the-point numbers:
You see, we believe that “we’re all in this together” is a far better philosophy than “you’re on your own.” [Cheers, applause.] It is. So who’s right? [Cheers.] Well, since 1961, for fifty-two years now, the Republicans have held the White House twenty-eight years, the Democrats, twenty-four. In those fifty-two years, our private economy has produced sixty-six million private sector jobs.

Q.E.D.
Clinton mounted a brilliant defense of Obama’s tropism for coöperation, citing the bipartisanship of his own post-Presidential work, mentioning that Obama’s cabinet appointees included people who had opposed his nomination (“He even appointed Hillary!”), and contrasting Obama’s openness (and past Republican practice) with the nihilism and hatefulness of “the far right that now controls their party.” And then this:
In Tampa, the Republican argument against the President’s reëlection was actually pretty simple—pretty snappy. It went something like this: We left him a total mess. He hasn’t cleaned it up fast enough. So fire him and put us back in. [Laughter, applause.]
***
Now, I like—I like—I like the argument for President Obama’s reëlection a lot better. Here it is. He inherited a deeply damaged economy. He put a floor under the crash. He began the long, hard road to recovery and laid the foundation for a modern, more well-balanced economy that will produce millions of good new jobs, vibrant new businesses, and lots of new wealth for innovators. [Cheers, applause.]
***
Folks, whether the American people believe what I just said or not may be the whole election. I just want you to know that I believe it. With all my heart, I believe it. [Cheers, applause.] Now, why do I believe it?
I’m fixing to tell you why.


That was the overture. Next, the symphony. Shaping his arguments with those big hands as well as that hoarse voice, Clinton defended Obama’s economic record and eviscerated virtually every Republican critique of that record, one by one, issue by issue: jobs and unemployment; the auto bailout; energy policy; health care; the deficit and the debt. He explained in patient detail why Republican accusations that Obama has weakened Medicare and gutted welfare-to-work requirements are “just not true.”
Does that sound dull? Well, it wasn’t. The audience in the hall was enthralled, and so were “the folks at home.” My home, anyway. [And mine]

Partly, I think, we were enthralled because he was enthralled. There was a script on the teleprompter, but wasn’t “reading” it; he was improvising on it in a, yes, disciplined way, the way a jazz soloist improvises on a familiar melody. [see below] His repeated admonitions—“Listen to this,” “Listen to this, everybody,” “Listen to me, now,” “Are you listening in Michigan and Ohio?,” “Now, finally, listen,” “Y’all you all got to listen carefully to this, this is really important”—came across not as hectoring but as breathless invitations, as if he was about to confide a particularly choice morsel of gossip. Each time he swivelled to a new issue—“Now, let’s talk about the debt”—you had the very opposite of a sinking sensation. You had a small thrill of delicious anticipation. O.K., let’s see how he puts this one away.
Fifty minutes? When Bill Clinton was President, he delivered nine State of the Union addresses. The first one clocked in at over an hour, and so did all eight of the rest. (Of the previous twenty-eight S.O.U.’s, just one—L.B.J.’s in 1967—had exceeded the sixty-minute mark.) The first couple of times Clinton did this, post-speech pundits opined that he’d gone on way too long, that he’d buried the audience’s patience under an avalanche of numbing detail. Polls and focus groups showed that the folks at home did not agree. They liked the length and they liked the detail.
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2012/09/bill-clinton-dnc-speech-born-to-run.html#ixzz25qwGhJfS


ClintonSpeechDNC_opt.jpg
(from The New Yorker )

September 7, 2012

Conversations With a Teleprompter


A lot of successful politicians, like George W. Bush and Barack Obama, are talented at reading from a Teleprompter. But Bill Clinton—as the comparison between his Democratic Convention remarks as prepared and as delivered proves—doesn’t read from a Teleprompter: he converses with it. He talks back when it has omitted a crucial detail; he one-ups it when its rhetorical flourish is insufficient.
Part of the reason he talks back so much (nearly doubling the initial length of his speech, in this case) is that he likes the sound of his own voice. But there is something else: Clinton is such a master of rhetorical strategy—he commands such innate and reflexive mastery of what makes the spoken word resonate—that he cannot help but improve his speech as he gives it. He doesn’t ad lib in the sense that extras in a movie have a restaurant conversation. He improvises, in the sense that Miles Davis or
Beethoven would come up with an enduring work of art on the spot.


The Teleprompter has plenty of good detail, but Clinton’s brain is so densely pulsating with wonky elaboration that a few more bleed their way into the speech. (Health-care costs went up at “three times the rate of inflation for a decade”; in 2009, the G.D.P. shrank at an annualized nine per cent; excursions on interest rates and bipartisan coöperation in municipal government.)
The Teleprompter, well stocked by professionals, has a nice colloquial rhythm. But Clinton is such a natural at connecting with an audience that the folksy flourishes he adds are no match for the machine’s. (“You all got to listen carefully to this”; “It’s a real doozy”; “Did y’all watch their convention? I did”; “It takes some brass to attack a guy for doing what you did.”) When he puts in little asides—the “wait a minute”s and the “listen”s and the “honestly, let’s just think about it”s—he is evincing more than tics: he is deploying a sly strategy, giving off the slight illusion that the whole speech is extemporaneous.

================================================================

Sometimes the Teleprompter is moving too rapidly for him, taking the dangerous risk that some passing nuance might not fully sink in to every head in the audience. So he slows the action and, at a critical juncture, makes it resonate with the audience by inserting a seemingly extraneous question and answer. “Why? Because” is his favorite way of seguing from point to point. The Teleprompter’s “which means” becomes Clinton’s “Now what does this mean? Think of it. It means…” The Teleprompter’s “coöperation works better; after all, nobody’s right all the time” becomes his “now why is this true? Why does coöperation work better than constant conflict? Because nobody’s right all the time.”

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/09/bill-clinton-conversations-with-a-teleprompter.html#ixzz25qs0874d

August 23, 2012

Obama leads in NBC/WSJ poll: A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows Obama leading Romney 48 percent to 44 percent.

The poll shows voters continue to process negative information about Romney, with 44 percent saying what they’ve heard in recent weeks has made them feel more negative toward Romney, as opposed to 32 percent who said it has made them feel more positive. Overall, Romney’s favorable/unfavorable split is 38/44.

On the congressional ballot, voters say they would prefer Democrats to control Congress by a 47 percent to 42 percent margin. That’s up from a one-point Democratic advantage last month. The GOP brand remains significantly worse than the Democratic brand.



But, it's not all bad for Romney...



Swing state polls are swinging — ever so slightly — toward Mitt Romney.

Romney, who has generally performed better in national polls than in swing state polls, has seen that disparity begin to disappear. And in fact, recent polls in several swing states show Romney asserting a lead or closing the gap in a way he hadn’t before.

Today’s trio of swing state polls from Quinnipiac University, CBS News and the New York Times are the latest to show a little movement toward Romney.


Remember: these are the states that will decide the presidency. National polls are fun/important and worth keeping an eye on, but as November approaches, the battle in this handful of states is what really matters.

Romney still trails in more swing state polls than he leads in, and a USA Today/Gallup poll released this week showed his performance in swing states (trailing President Obama 47 percent to 44 percent) continues to lag behind his performance elsewhere (ahead 47 percent to 45 percent)

But as Nate Silver pointed out Wednesday, it’s not nearly as lopsided as it used to be. Silver notes that, in June and July, Obama led in in about four times as many swing state polls as Romney did.

That had Democrats claiming that their attacks on Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital was working. After all, they argued, the swing states are the places where those ads are running.

If that was the case, then it appears the GOP’s ramped-up advertising — or maybe the bad economic news or Paul Ryan’s selection as Romney’s running mate — has brought things back near even. And while the Obama campaign has spent heavily early on, Republicans are expected to significantly outspend Democrats down the stretch.

n the end, it’s not surprising to see the swing states begin to reflect the national race a little more. We live in a highly polarized country, where half of people are very much on one side and half are on the other. Swing states are supposed to reflect the national mood.

There’s no big sea change in these polls — most changes are within the margin of error — and every poll is a snapshot in time.

But the preponderance of evidence — to borrow a legal term — suggests a race that is getting more competitive in the states that will decide the next president.