Romney-Obama: Handicapping the Race

[Farnhamia]

My apologies, I was ... imprecise in saying what ASB posted. "Could" is the right word.

Nate Silver's posting today (the 10th) that Romney's erased Obama's post-convention bounce. I swear, if a bad 90 minutes last week undoes the hard-won accomplishments of the last four years I will not be happy.

If this is really what it takes, Romney and the Republicans have basically destroyed American politics single-handedly. If the "winning approach" to debates is to literally walk onto the stage, tell more than 50 overt, intentional lies in an hour and a half, then walk off, we're in no shape to call ourselves a respectable nation. Politics seems to be literally transforming into every 14 year old Ron Paul devotee's dream land, where "POLITICIANS R BAD" and the only vote is no vote. I'd say this could impact turnout by disillusioning voters, but it seems to me that, outside of a narrow band of the population, nobody cares. That's pretty disturbing to me, personally.

If this is what is going to happen, and all it took was an hour and a half of uninterrupted, bald-faced lying, then it is genuinely possible to buy the election using cash as a megaphone for your lies. If that's the case, anyone who isn't out first and foremost to glorify and promote corporate interests seems to be in for a lot of trouble.

Yes, well, that was the first debate. It depends on how Obama handles Romney in the next one. He really can't retreat into his own head the way he did a week ago. He has to trumpet his accomplishments, which, despite Republican resistance, are considerable. Can you say 30 months of continued job growth? GM showing record profits? Maybe he should ask Romney if he'd still let the auto industry go. But really, all he has to do is say three words: "Governor, you're lying." When Romney starts reinventing himself, just fucking call him on it. Obama knows that's what Romney's game plan is now, the old Etch A Sketch, shake-'em-up, fancy footwork routine. Just nail the guy's feet to the ground with some facts, Mr. President. It can't be that hard.

[New England and The Maritimes]

If this is really what it takes, Romney and the Republicans have basically destroyed American politics single-handedly. If the "winning approach" to debates is to literally walk onto the stage, tell more than 50 overt, intentional lies in an hour and a half, then walk off, we're in no shape to call ourselves a respectable nation. Politics seems to be literally transforming into every 14 year old Ron Paul devotee's dream land, where "POLITICIANS R BAD" and the only vote is no vote. I'd say this could impact turnout by disillusioning voters, but it seems to me that, outside of a narrow band of the population, nobody cares. That's pretty disturbing to me, personally.

If this is what is going to happen, and all it took was an hour and a half of uninterrupted, bald-faced lying, then it is genuinely possible to buy the election using cash as a megaphone for your lies. If that's the case, anyone who isn't out first and foremost to glorify and promote corporate interests seems to be in for a lot of trouble.

Yes, well, that was the first debate. It depends on how Obama handles Romney in the next one. He really can't retreat into his own head the way he did a week ago. He has to trumpet his accomplishments, which, despite Republican resistance, are considerable. Can you say 30 months of continued job growth? GM showing record profits? Maybe he should ask Romney if he'd still let the auto industry go. But really, all he has to do is say three words: "Governor, you're lying." When Romney starts reinventing himself, just fucking call him on it. Obama knows that's what Romney's game plan is now, the old Etch A Sketch, shake-'em-up, fancy footwork routine. Just nail the guy's feet to the ground with some facts, Mr. President. It can't be that hard.

I would just start coming out with direct quotes from the horse's mouth, to be honest. Pick one of his positions that is the opposite of what he's saying on the debate floor, then say exactly what he said back to him. "I quote, 'it is silly to expect me to walk in and in one term clean up the mess I was left with.' I think you may know the fellow who said it. You two seem to share a name."

[Farnhamia]

Yes, well, that was the first debate. It depends on how Obama handles Romney in the next one. He really can't retreat into his own head the way he did a week ago. He has to trumpet his accomplishments, which, despite Republican resistance, are considerable. Can you say 30 months of continued job growth? GM showing record profits? Maybe he should ask Romney if he'd still let the auto industry go. But really, all he has to do is say three words: "Governor, you're lying." When Romney starts reinventing himself, just fucking call him on it. Obama knows that's what Romney's game plan is now, the old Etch A Sketch, shake-'em-up, fancy footwork routine. Just nail the guy's feet to the ground with some facts, Mr. President. It can't be that hard.

I would just start coming out with direct quotes from the horse's mouth, to be honest. Pick one of his positions that is the opposite of what he's saying on the debate floor, then say exactly what he said back to him. "I quote, 'it is silly to expect me to walk in and in one term clean up the mess I was left with.' I think you may know the fellow who said it. You two seem to share a name."

That's the ticket. And Obama should trot out Reagan's old line. "There you go again, Governor, changing your position again. Have you informed Congressman Ryan that the $716 billion in Medicare cuts in his budget plans has been eliminated?"

[Revolutopia]

I would just start coming out with direct quotes from the horse's mouth, to be honest. Pick one of his positions that is the opposite of what he's saying on the debate floor, then say exactly what he said back to him. "I quote, 'it is silly to expect me to walk in and in one term clean up the mess I was left with.' I think you may know the fellow who said it. You two seem to share a name."

That's the ticket. And Obama should trot out Reagan's old line. "There you go again, Governor, changing your position again. Have you informed Congressman Ryan that the $716 billion in Medicare cuts in his budget plans has been eliminated?"

I think he should also use Reagan's "Trust, but verify" by mentioning that the American people are trust worthy people who wish to believe that Romney is being honest and will follow his "principles", but Romney's constant flip flopping and refusing to release any details of his agenda makes it difficult for use to verify or trust his statements.

[Alien Space Bats]

But really, all he has to do is say three words: "Governor, you're lying." When Romney starts reinventing himself, just fucking call him on it.

The Romney campaign is banking on the notion that those three words are toxic, and that no politician ever dare say them.

Now, there's some foundation to that idea: Political consultants claim to have determined, through countless hours of work with focus groups, that direct attacks of that sort do more damage to the attacker than to the target, even when the claim is true.

Supposedly, we voters are too sensitive to tolerate such words; supposedly, we would view their utterance as a terrible political sin. This is all wrapped up, of course, with in the taboo against "going negative", because supposedly going too negative turns voters off.

I think the rest of you know that I have very little respect for Beltway "wisdom", and especially for the teachings of the political consulting class. I think that a lot of them are serving up ideas that are at best outdated relics of the pre-Reagan era, when independents walked the Earth (and that applies only to those few ideas that might have once had validity, but no longer do; some of these consultants' ideas suck so hard that I don't think they ever held true).

But in the post-polarization era, calling your adversary out for being a liar is going to do three things: It's going to shock independents, it's going to offend your opponents, and it's going to supercharge your base. Since I operate under the belief that independents don't really exist, that simply means that it's going to excite both sides, so you want to do it in a way that makes the declaration an unforgettable battle-cry for your side.

To that end, if it must be done - and I think we are at the point where, indeed, it must be done, the better way to do it is with three different words:

"Stop lying, Mitt."

Those three words are better because the strip Mitt Romney of his dignity, because they imply that Romney's lies are an ongoing thing, and because they echo the words of a parent issuing an order to a recalcitrant child, which both plays upon Obama's role as a father, the power and office of the Presidency that he holds, and the sentiments of the one group of voters he most strongly wants to connect with at this moment in time: Women. Saying those three words in that particular way will make every woman - whether she has children or not - think of Mitt Romney as a naughty child and the President as a exasperated parent who has finally reached the end of his rope.

But to make the tactic work, the President must then be firm in his followup, continuing to reign his opponent in every time he lies, continuing to show strong but gentle parental firmness, continuing to maintain that fatherly position, all in order to reinforce the impression. It's Transactional Analysis written onto the political stage, and make no mistake: It will drive the opposition into a state of total rage. But if done correctly, it can also serve as a pivot for attacks on the entire opposition as willful, irresponsible, and childish.

I don't know if the President could pull off such a performance; he's a better speaker than a debater. But if he could do it, it would pretty much end the Romney campaign in a single evening.

That's the ticket. And Obama should trot out Reagan's old line. "There you go again, Governor, changing your position again. Have you informed Congressman Ryan that the $716 billion in Medicare cuts in his budget plans has been eliminated?"

Actually - although Obama can't use it - those first three words reminded me of just how much Mitt Romney sounds like Jon Lovitz' Tommy Flanagan character from SNL.

Now, the SNL crew could work wonders in this election by fusing Mitt with Tommy...

[The Amyclae]

Speaking as someone who doesn't want to see Romney elected, I hope he says nothing of the sort.

I know it's too much to ask for Obama to stop being 'another politician' at this point, but a boy can hope.

[Alien Space Bats]

Electoral-vote.com Map (as of October 10th, 2012)



Obama 317, Romney 206 (15 Undecided)

---

PLEASE NOTE: NEW POLLS MAY NOT FULLY REFLECT REACTION TO THE SEPTEMBER JOBS REPORT.

---

Twelve new polls are out today:

• In Colorado (9 EV's), a new poll by ARG dated October 8th shows Romney up by 4%; averaging this poll with two others taken within a one-week look-back window (by Rasmussen and Selzer) leaves the race here in a dead heat. The Centennial State slides from "Barely Democratic" to "Exactly Tied".
  
  
• In Nevada (6 EV's), a new poll by Rasmussen dated October 8th shows Obama and Romney dead even. The Silver State moves from "Likely Democratic" to "Exactly Tied".
  
  
• In Ohio (18 EV's), three new polls (by ARG, SurveyUSA, and ORC International, all dated October 8th) show Obama leading by an averaging of 1%; averaging these three polls with two others taken within a one-week look-back window (by Rasmussen and Marist College) gives the President a net lead of 3%. The Buckeye State remains "Barely Democratic".
  
  
• In New Hampshire (4 EV's), a new poll by the University of New Hampshire dated October 6th shows Obama up by 6%; averaging this poll with an earlier one by the same organization dated September 30th puts the President up by an average of 11%. Note my skepticism of that earlier poll at the time it came out; I think the latest poll is probably much closer to the truth, and future polls will probably end up putting the State back in play. For now, the Granite State moves from "Likely Democratic" to "Strongly Democratic".
  
  
• In Pennsylvania (20 EV's), a new poll by Siena College dated October 5th shows Obama leading by 3%; this seems like far too great a swing from earlier polls giving the President a double-digit lead in the State, so we're going to want to see further polls confirming this result before declaring the State back in play. In the meantime, the Keystone State swings from "Strongly Democratic" to "Barely Democratic".
  
  
• In Minnesota (10 EV's), a new poll by PPP dated October 8th shows Obama up by 10%. The North Star State shifts from "Likely Democratic" to "Strongly Democratic".
  
  
• In Connecticut (7 EV's), a new poll by Rasmussen dated October 7th shows Obama up by 6%. The Constitution States moves from "Strongly Democratic" to "Likely Democratic".
  
  
• In Massachusetts (11 EV's), three new polls (one by Western New England University, dated October 4th, one by MassINC, dated October 7th, and one by the University of Massachusetts, dated October 8th) show Obama leading by an average of 23%. The Bay State remains "Strongly Democratic".

Tanenbaum also lists a PPP poll in Wisconsin, dated October 6th, but this poll was already added to the map several days back (it was, in fact, one of the first post-debate polls added).

---

A month ago, pundits were beginning to write off the Romney campaign as dead; now what Rachel Maddow calls the "Commentariat" seems poised to declare Mitt Romney our next President. For my part, I still think that premature; for one thing, it's an old adage of politics that losing campaigns always know they're losing before winners know they're winning, and right now I see far too much smug certainty of victory on the right combined with a near-total lack of panic within the Obama campaign on the left. That combination suggests to me that the race hasn't turned as far away from Chicago as the press seem to want to say it has.

The last few days worth of maps should demonstrate why this is so: Few people really believe that Michigan and Pennsylvania are actually in play, and while the debate has tightened things up across the so-called "swing" States, Obama's grip on Ohio - while small - still appears to be firm. Nor has Wisconsin moved over to the Romney camp, which is significant: Almost all of Romney's paths to the White House that don't go through Ohio pretty much have to go through Wisconsin. Nor is it hard to see why this is so.

Keep Wisconsin in the ranks of the so-called "Kerry" States, and the President still has a nearly solid base of 242 EV's to start him on his path back to Washington for a second term. Add Ohio's 18 EV's and New Hampshire's 4 EV's for good measure (and the President has slowly been pulling away in New Hampshire, in spite of the recent debate debacle), and "Team Obama" is looking at 264 EV's; at that point, any single "swing" State wins them the race.

If Nevada were still light blue, this would be bad for Mitt Romney; still, I'm expecting the Silver State to break Democratic on November 7th, simply as a consequence of the Democrats' superior ground game there. Colorado remains a toss-up, while Obama clings to narrow leads in Iowa, Virginia, and Florida; Romney is therefore still left having to run the table against all odds to prevail.

None of which stops the press from talking inane bullshit. Yesterday on CNN, I heard some idiot commentator say something truly stupid: "The momentum is now in Romney's favor." This isn't a freaking football game; "momentum" doesn't exist here. Instead, a political race can be better understood as a series of changes in state to a complex system; each change alters the voters' perception of the two candidates and the race. It may take a few days for a given incident, speech, statement, or event to play out, but when it does the race will essentially enter a new equilibrium; events like debates do not provide some kind of continuing impetus that moves voters from one side of the ledger to the other. There ain't no "Big Mo" in politics.

The first debate energized Republicans, disheartened Democrats, and changed some people's perceptions of the two candidates; once that effect has run its course, the race will arrive at a new balance. It is entirely possible that the new balance will leave Governor Romney in the lead w/re to the National popular vote, but it does not appear that he has gained enough in the "swing" States to take away the President's lead in the Electoral College. To be sure, this still leaves him in a better position than he was in at the moment he walked onto that debate stage in Denver - but it means that he still needs something more to take the lead, and more beyond that if he wants to close the deal.

Understanding this puts tomorrow's Vice Presidential debate in its proper light: The media may be trying to paint this as a "do or die" moment for "Team Obama", trying to create a parallel narrative to the one they blasted across the airwaves a week ago; yet this is still Barack Obama's race to lose and Mitt Romney's race to win. Joe Biden doesn't have to destroy Paul Ryan tomorrow night in Danville, Kentucky; indeed, all he really has to do is fight the seven-term Wisconsin Congressman to a draw. If anything, it is Ryan who must win, preferably by continuing Mitt Romney's narrative from last Wednesday night about how the Romney-Ryan ticket is "moderate" and how Obama is "out of touch".

Of course, a rout by either side would be pivotal, and both sides will be going for one; Ryan will probably play defense more than Biden, which may actually work to the Vice President's advantage. As I've said before, Biden's real target should not be Paul Ryan, but rather Mitt Romney: Not only is Ryan a harder target to hit (because he can always disavow any past difficult or controversial positions by simply saying that "Governor Romney is the nominee, so it's his positions that matter, not mine"), but he's a less important one as well; going after him will largely be a waste of time. What Biden has to do is keep Romney's past pronouncements in focus, attack flip-flops and contradictions in Governor Romney's earlier statements, and challenge Paul Ryan to explain - if he can - the difference between the two.

Such a battle, should Biden choose to wage it, will be much, much harder for Ryan to fight: He's left with trying to explain how the Governor could simply hand-wave away his earlier remarks as "inoperative". From Ryan's perspective, it will be better if he can stay on the attack, trying to cast President Obama as a failure in office by sullying everything he has done and trying to dwell on those things he has not yet succeeded in doing. In this regard, last Friday's unemployment report looms large: Armed with it, Biden can stand up and say that Obama has achieved that goal which was first and foremost when he took office: He has returned the Nation to its pre-inauguration employment levels, essentially cleaning up the damage left behind by "George W. Bush's recesssion". Moreover, he has done this with virtually no help from Ryan and his fellow Republican Congressmen in the House of Representatives (a charge that sounds a whole lot better than accusing them of obstructionism, however true; saying they've kept Obama from getting his job done looks weak, after all - but saying that Obama and the Democrats have done the whole job by themselves, without any help at all from Republicans forms the basis for a positively deadly attack on the "Boehner-Ryan Do-Nothing House").

In the face of this, Ryan is left with having to claim the recovery could have been stronger and faster, and that Obama failed the country by making it neither; yet even here Ryan is at risk: Such a line of attack opens up Congressional Republicans (again) as completely unhelpful. "What would you have had us do to get this economy back on track?" Biden can ask Ryan point-blank; and when Ryan responds, Biden can shoot back: "So did you propose that as a bill? Did you and your fellow Republicans in the House reach across the aisle and offer to join with the President on that?" If Biden can label House Republicans as essentially missing in action and claim that the Obama Administration has had to haul the economy back from the brink entirely on its own, he'll have hit a grand slam.

Nor does Ryan have much play when it comes to foreign policy: The best he can do is talk about vague threats that haven't materialized, or try to paint a picture of a world overseas falling apart at the seams. This, too, is a risky strategy - especially against a man with Biden's foreign policy chops: If Ryan tries to accuse the Obama Administration of "losing" the Arab world to the radical Salafists, Biden can dismiss such talk as "fearmongering", pointing to the gains made in Tunisia and especially Libya, where the masses have responded to the horrible events of September 11th, 2012 with a huge groundswell of support for America and clear support for continuing close ties with the U.S.; he can then pivot onto the sensitive topic of Egypt by simply saying that democracy isn't pretty - "I mean, it's not like we haven't seen how ugly it can be in our own history, now is it?" - but that the U.S. remains engaged with the Morsi government, understanding that government to be walking a tightrope between different political blocs within the country, and believes that it can help guide Egypt through this transition through such engagement.

Ditto for Iran: The recent unrest there from the rapid devaluation of the rial and the widespread antipathy towards the Ahmedinejad governmnet works to the advantage of Obama and Biden: They can point to recent news from Israel that indicates these protests have led the Netanyahu government to re-evaluate the need for immediate military action - "It's clear that sanctions are crippling Iran, and that's making those of us who want Ahmedinejad to abandon his nuclear ambitions think that they might yet be persuaded to do so without the need for war." Biden can point out that President Ahmedinejad is himself not only widely unpopular but also effectively on the way out: "His second term will end next August, and he can't run again - nor could he hope to win at this stage, even if he were able to try." Biden can point out that the next Iranian government will inherit a great many problems from the present one, and that as such it has strong motivation to change course. "We've drawn a line in the sand, and we're prepared to make sure that line isn't crossed - but if we can resolve this issue without bloodshed, we owe it to everybody to do so."

Recent news from Syria also works to Biden's advantage, and against Ryan: Nobody doubts that Assad will eventually fall, and no sensible person believes that American intervention can result in the post-revolutionary government of Syria being one of our choosing. As in Egypt, Syria will choose its own government, and we need to understand and respect that. Right now nobody knows what kind of government it will be, so watching, waiting, and working behind the scenes to keep the conflict from spilling beyond Syria's borders is the right course of action to take.

Which brings us to the great risk for the Romney-Ryan ticket: Biden can use the debate to soften up Romney on the foreign policy front. He can attack te Republicans as irresponsibly provocative in their depiction of Russia as an "enemy"; he can argue that such talk worsens relations with Russia at a time when cooperation with the Russians is extremely important. Indeed, he can even opine that Romney's position on Russia is "antiquated" and that it would tend to lead us back into open opposition with the Russians. "The Cold War is over. We won it over 20 years ago, remember? Why in the world would Governor Romney want to go back and re-fight it? What's to be gained from doing that? Nothing! It's dangerous, it's irresponsible, and it's proof that Governor Romney shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the White House."

In all of these areas, Ryan can fight back - but it's going to be difficult everywhere. He has to argue that Egypt is now in the hands of radicals who want to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth; he has to argue that the whole Arab world is against us; he has to argue that sanctions aren't doing any good in Iran; he has to argue that Syria is being lost to the Salafists along with Egypt; and most importantly of all, he has to argue that Russia is a bad actor who needs to be reigned in by America again, just as Reagan reigned them in back in the 1980's. Yet all of these positions pose terrible danger for "Team Romney", not only in the debate but beyond, because in the aftermath of the debate, "Team Obama" can condemn the Romney-Ryan ticket for having a "tin ear" when it comes to diplomacy: "When you call another country your enemy, that has a tendency to make that country your enemy. By making such statements, the Romney-Ryan ticket is digging themselves a hole, that hole being having the whole world angry at them for their unwise remarks if they should win. Real statesmen understand that you have to be diplomatic in your choice of words; these people are proving that they don't have any idea of what diplomacy is in the first place, and that would make them a complete disaster if they ever found themselves in power."

---

I can't know what will happen Thursday night; no one can. I doubt anyone could have expected Barack Obama to turn in such a lackluster performance last Wednesday, and no one expected Mitt Romney to shake the "Etch-a-Sketch" on the night of his first debate - let alone to get away with it. If there's one thing we should expect on Thursday, it's the unexpected. But on the whole, Joe Biden's chances look better than Paul Ryan's, and the fact that - whatever the press may say - Joe doesn't need to score a TKO - suggests that on Friday morning we're going to be looking at yet another media narrative, and that it will probably be one more favorable to Barack Obama.

[Cannot think of a name]

PLEASE NOTE: NEW POLLS MAY NOT FULLY REFLECT REACTION TO THE SEPTEMBER JOBS REPORT.

Will they ever, really? The biggest news there was right headed punditry flipping their shit pretending that people think the books were cooked (with a few complete nutters willing to claim THEY thought the books were cooked without any evidence). I don't know that mild at best jobs reports, even the one that makes jobs a net positive or lowers unemployment marginally below 8% is really bound to have that much effect on anything.

[Wikkiwallana]

But really, all he has to do is say three words: "Governor, you're lying." When Romney starts reinventing himself, just fucking call him on it.

The Romney campaign is banking on the notion that those three words are toxic, and that no politician ever dare say them.

Now, there's some foundation to that idea: Political consultants claim to have determined, through countless hours of work with focus groups, that direct attacks of that sort do more damage to the attacker than to the target, even when the claim is true.

Supposedly, we voters are too sensitive to tolerate such words; supposedly, we would view their utterance as a terrible political sin. This is all wrapped up, of course, with in the taboo against "going negative", because supposedly going too negative turns voters off.

I think the rest of you know that I have very little respect for Beltway "wisdom", and especially for the teachings of the political consulting class. I think that a lot of them are serving up ideas that are at best outdated relics of the pre-Reagan era, when independents walked the Earth (and that applies only to those few ideas that might have once had validity, but no longer do; some of these consultants' ideas suck so hard that I don't think they ever held true).

But in the post-polarization era, calling your adversary out for being a liar is going to do three things: It's going to shock independents, it's going to offend your opponents, and it's going to supercharge your base. Since I operate under the belief that independents don't really exist, that simply means that it's going to excite both sides, so you want to do it in a way that makes the declaration an unforgettable battle-cry for your side.

To that end, if it must be done - and I think we are at the point where, indeed, it must be done, the better way to do it is with three different words:

"Stop lying, Mitt."

Those three words are better because the strip Mitt Romney of his dignity, because they imply that Romney's lies are an ongoing thing, and because they echo the words of a parent issuing an order to a recalcitrant child, which both plays upon Obama's role as a father, the power and office of the Presidency that he holds, and the sentiments of the one group of voters he most strongly wants to connect with at this moment in time: Women. Saying those three words in that particular way will make every woman - whether she has children or not - think of Mitt Romney as a naughty child and the President as a exasperated parent who has finally reached the end of his rope.

But to make the tactic work, the President must then be firm in his followup, continuing to reign his opponent in every time he lies, continuing to show strong but gentle parental firmness, continuing to maintain that fatherly position, all in order to reinforce the impression. It's Transactional Analysiswritten onto the political stage, and make no mistake: It will drive the opposition into a state of total rage. But if done correctly, it can also serve as a pivot for attacks on the entire opposition as willful, irresponsible, and childish.

I don't know if the President could pull off such a performance; he's a better speaker than a debater. But if he could do it, it would pretty much end the Romney campaign in a single evening.

And once again, I wonder why the hell the Obama campaign hasn't hired you for some obscene salary.

[Wikkiwallana]

-snip-
None of which stops the press from talking inane bullshit. Yesterday on CNN, I heard some idiot commentator say something truly stupid: "The momentum is now in Romney's favor." This isn't a freaking football game; "momentum" doesn't exist here. Instead, a political race can be better understood as a series of changes in state to a complex system; each change alters the voters' perception of the two candidates and the race. It may take a few days for a given incident, speech, statement, or event to play out, but when it does the race will essentially enter a new equilibrium; events like debates do not provide some kind of continuing impetus that moves voters from one side of the ledger to the other. There ain't no "Big Mo" in politics.

The first debate energized Republicans, disheartened Democrats, and changed some people's perceptions of the two candidates; once that effect has run its course, the race will arrive at a new balance. It is entirely possible that the new balance will leave Governor Romney in the lead w/re to the National popular vote, but it does not appear that he has gained enough in the "swing" States to take away the President's lead in the Electoral College. To be sure, this still leaves him in a better position than he was in at the moment he walked onto that debate stage in Denver - but it means that he still needs something more to take the lead, and more beyond that if he wants to close the deal.

Understanding this puts tomorrow's Vice Presidential debate in its proper light: The media may be trying to paint this as a "do or die" moment for "Team Obama", trying to create a parallel narrative to the one they blasted across the airwaves a week ago; yet this is still Barack Obama's race to lose and Mitt Romney's race to win. Joe Biden doesn't have to destroy Paul Ryan tomorrow night in Danville, Kentucky; indeed, all he really has to do is fight the seven-term Wisconsin Congressman to a draw. If anything, it is Ryan who must win, preferably by continuing Mitt Romney's narrative from last Wednesday night about how the Romney-Ryan ticket is "moderate" and how Obama is "out of touch".

Of course, a rout by either side would be pivotal, and both sides will be going for one; Ryan will probably play defense more than Biden, which may actually work to the Vice President's advantage. As I've said before, Biden's real target should not be Paul Ryan, but rather Mitt Romney: Not only is Ryan a harder target to hit (because he can always disavow any past difficult or controversial positions by simply saying that "Governor Romney is the nominee, so it's his positions that matter, not mine"), but he's a less important one as well; going after him will largely be a waste of time. What Biden has to do is keep Romney's past pronouncements in focus, attack flip-flops and contradictions in Governor Romney's earlier statements, and challenge Paul Ryan to explain - if he can - the difference between the two.

Such a battle, should Biden choose to wage it, will be much, much harder for Ryan to fight: He's left with trying to explain how the Governor could simply hand-wave away his earlier remarks as "inoperative". From Ryan's perspective, it will be better if he can stay on the attack, trying to cast President Obama as a failure in office by sullying everything he has done and trying to dwell on those things he has not yet succeeded in doing. In this regard, last Friday's unemployment report looms large: Armed with it, Biden can stand up and say that Obama has achieved that goal which was first and foremost when he took office: He has returned the Nation to its pre-inauguration employment levels, essentially cleaning up the damage left behind by "George W. Bush's recesssion". Moreover, he has done this with virtually no help from Ryan and his fellow Republican Congressmen in the House of Representatives (a charge that sounds a whole lot better than accusing them of obstructionism, however true; saying they've kept Obama from getting his job done looks weak, after all - but saying that Obama and the Democrats have done the whole job by themselves, without any help at all from Republicans forms the basis for a positively deadly attack on the "Boehner-Ryan Do-Nothing House").

In the face of this, Ryan is left with having to claim the recovery could have been stronger and faster, and that Obama failed the country by making it neither; yet even here Ryan is at risk: Such a line of attack opens up Congressional Republicans (again) as completely unhelpful. "What would you have had us do to get this economy back on track?" Biden can ask Ryan point-blank; and when Ryan responds, Biden can shoot back: "So did you propose that as a bill? Did you and your fellow Republicans in the House reach across the aisle and offer to join with the President on that?" If Biden can label House Republicans as essentially missing in action and claim that the Obama Administration has had to haul the economy back from the brink entirely on its own, he'll have hit a grand slam.

Nor does Ryan have much play when it comes to foreign policy: The best he can do is talk about vague threats that haven't materialized, or try to paint a picture of a world overseas falling apart at the seams. This, too, is a risky strategy - especially against a man with Biden's foreign policy chops: If Ryan tries to accuse the Obama Administration of "losing" the Arab world to the radical Salafists, Biden can dismiss such talk as "fearmongering", pointing to the gains made in Tunisia and especially Libya, where the masses have responded to the horrible events of September 11th, 2012 with a huge groundswell of support for America and clear support for continuing close ties with the U.S.; he can then pivot onto the sensitive topic of Egypt by simply saying that democracy isn't pretty - "I mean, it's not like we haven't seen how ugly it can be in our own history, now is it?" - but that the U.S. remains engaged with the Morsi government, understanding that government to be walking a tightrope between different political blocs within the country, and believes that it can help guide Egypt through this transition through such engagement.

Ditto for Iran: The recent unrest there from the rapid devaluation of the rial and the widespread antipathy towards the Ahmedinejad governmnet works to the advantage of Obama and Biden: They can point to recent news from Israel that indicates these protests have led the Netanyahu government to re-evaluate the need for immediate military action - "It's clear that sanctions are crippling Iran, and that's making those of us who want Ahmedinejad to abandon his nuclear ambitions think that they might yet be persuaded to do so without the need for war." Biden can point out that President Ahmedinejad is himself not only widely unpopular but also effectively on the way out: "His second term will end next August, and he can't run again - nor could he hope to win at this stage, even if he were able to try." Biden can point out that the next Iranian government will inherit a great many problems from the present one, and that as such it has strong motivation to change course. "We've drawn a line in the sand, and we're prepared to make sure that line isn't crossed - but if we can resolve this issue without bloodshed, we owe it to everybody to do so."

Recent news from Syria also works to Biden's advantage, and against Ryan: Nobody doubts that Assad will eventually fall, and no sensible person believes that American intervention can result in the post-revolutionary government of Syria being one of our choosing. As in Egypt, Syria will choose its own government, and we need to understand and respect that. Right now nobody knows what kind of government it will be, so watching, waiting, and working behind the scenes to keep the conflict from spilling beyond Syria's borders is the right course of action to take.

Which brings us to the great risk for the Romney-Ryan ticket: Biden can use the debate to soften up Romney on the foreign policy front. He can attack te Republicans as irresponsibly provocative in their depiction of Russia as an "enemy"; he can argue that such talk worsens relations with Russia at a time when cooperation with the Russians is extremely important. Indeed, he can even opine that Romney's position on Russia is "antiquated" and that it would tend to lead us back into open opposition with the Russians. "The Cold War is over. We won it over 20 years ago, remember? Why in the world would Governor Romney want to go back and re-fight it? What's to be gained from doing that? Nothing! It's dangerous, it's irresponsible, and it's proof that Governor Romney shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the White House."

In all of these areas, Ryan can fight back - but it's going to be difficult everywhere. He has to argue that Egypt is now in the hands of radicals who want to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth; he has to argue that the whole Arab world is against us; he has to argue that sanctions aren't doing any good in Iran; he has to argue that Syria is being lost to the Salafists along with Egypt; and most importantly of all, he has to argue that Russia is a bad actor who needs to be reigned in by America again, just as Reagan reigned them in back in the 1980's. Yet all of these positions pose terrible danger for "Team Romney", not only in the debate but beyond, because in the aftermath of the debate, "Team Obama" can condemn the Romney-Ryan ticket for having a "tin ear" when it comes to diplomacy: "When you call another country your enemy, that has a tendency to make that country your enemy. By making such statements, the Romney-Ryan ticket is digging themselves a hole, that hole being having the whole world angry at them for their unwise remarks if they should win. Real statesmen understand that you have to be diplomatic in your choice of words; these people are proving that they don't have any idea of what diplomacy is in the first place, and that would make them a complete disaster if they ever found themselves in power."

---

I can't know what will happen Thursday night; no one can. I doubt anyone could have expected Barack Obama to turn in such a lackluster performance last Wednesday, and no one expected Mitt Romney to shake the "Etch-a-Sketch" on the night of his first debate - let alone to get away with it. If there's one thing we should expect on Thursday, it's the unexpected. But on the whole, Joe Biden's chances look better than Paul Ryan's, and the fact that - whatever the press may say - Joe doesn't need to score a TKO - suggests that on Friday morning we're going to be looking at yet another media narrative, and that it will probably be one more favorable to Barack Obama.

Seriously, they should be giving you 6 or 7 figures for this kind of thing, in my opinion.

[Alien Space Bats]

Hey, ASB- Netanyahu just called early elections. Think this'll have any effect on the race back home?

Only in one way: I think it pretty much precludes the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran before November 6th.

Which means that if the current situation in Syria remains in check for the next four weeks, there probably isn't going to be any kind of overseas October surprise. That, in turn, means that it now all comes down to the last three debates, possible campaign gaffes, and the much-anticipated GOP "ad blitz" during the final two weeks of the campaign.

[Salandriagado]

Hey, ASB- Netanyahu just called early elections. Think this'll have any effect on the race back home?

Only in one way: I think it pretty much precludes the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran before November 6th.

Which means that if the current situation in Syria remains in check for the next four weeks, there probably isn't going to be any kind of overseas October surprise. That, in turn, means that it now all comes down to the last three debates, possible campaign gaffes, and the much-anticipated GOP "ad blitz" during the final two weeks of the campaign.

Honestly, I have to wonder if the shear scale of anticipation of that ad blitz wont dull its effects somewhat.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Only in one way: I think it pretty much precludes the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran before November 6th.

Which means that if the current situation in Syria remains in check for the next four weeks, there probably isn't going to be any kind of overseas October surprise. That, in turn, means that it now all comes down to the last three debates, possible campaign gaffes, and the much-anticipated GOP "ad blitz" during the final two weeks of the campaign.

Honestly, I have to wonder if the shear scale of anticipation of that ad blitz wont dull its effects somewhat.

The "Shock-and-Awe" effect.

[The Amyclae]

Only in one way: I think it pretty much precludes the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran before November 6th.

Which means that if the current situation in Syria remains in check for the next four weeks, there probably isn't going to be any kind of overseas October surprise. That, in turn, means that it now all comes down to the last three debates, possible campaign gaffes, and the much-anticipated GOP "ad blitz" during the final two weeks of the campaign.

Honestly, I have to wonder if the shear scale of anticipation of that ad blitz wont dull its effects somewhat.

I had a good chuckle when I saw this. Or at least a smirk. What anticipation, except among the chattering class? If you went out and asked a voter "do you think the ad blitz by Romney will work even though he's Muslim?" you will probably be met with blank stares (whats an ad blitz? Whose?) or daggers (Romney doesnt have to show his birthcertificate to anyone!/Only ignorant Republicans think he's Muslim!).

There needs to be more "hands on" work with the common voter. It'll afford me less laughs, but I'll accept that in favor of the alternative.

[Miami Shores]

Jack Welch: I Was Right About That Strange Jobs Report
The economy would need to be growing at breakneck speed for unemployment to drop to 7.8% from 8.3% in the course of two months.

By JACK WELCH
Imagine a country where challenging the ruling authorities—questioning, say, a piece of data released by central headquarters—would result in mobs of administration sympathizers claiming you should feel "embarrassed" and labeling you a fool, or worse

Soviet Russia perhaps? Communist China? (Cuba as well, posted by Miami Shores)) Nope, that would be the United States right now, when a person (like me, for instance) suggests that a certain government datum (like the September unemployment rate of 7.8%) doesn't make sense.

Unfortunately for those who would like me to pipe down, the 7.8% unemployment figure released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) last week is downright implausible. And that's why I made a stink about it.

Before I explain why the number is questionable, though, a few words about where I'm coming from. Contrary to some of the sound-and-fury last week, I do not work for the Mitt Romney campaign. I am definitely not a surrogate. My wife, Suzy, is not associated with the campaign, either. She worked at Bain Consulting (not Bain Capital) right after business school, in 1988 and 1989, and had no contact with Mr. Romney.

The Obama campaign and its supporters, including bigwigs like David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs, along with several cable TV anchors, would like you to believe that BLS data are handled like the gold in Fort Knox, with gun-carrying guards watching their every move, and highly trained, white-gloved super-agents counting and recounting hourly.

Let's get real. The unemployment data reported each month are gathered over a one-week period by census workers, by phone in 70% of the cases, and the rest through home visits. In sum, they try to contact 60,000 households, asking a list of questions and recording the responses.

More in Opinion
"Happy Days Are Not Here Again"

Big Bird, Small President

Noonan: A Run on Romney Signs

Taranto: Tears of a Clown
.
Some questions allow for unambiguous answers, but others less so. For instance, the range for part-time work falls between one hour and 34 hours a week. So, if an out-of-work accountant tells a census worker, "I got one baby-sitting job this week just to cover my kid's bus fare, but I haven't been able to find anything else," that could be recorded as being employed part-time.

The possibility of subjectivity creeping into the process is so pervasive that the BLS's own "Handbook of Methods" has a full page explaining the limitations of its data, including how non-sampling errors get made, from "misinterpretation of the questions" to "errors made in the estimations of missing data."

Bottom line: To suggest that the input to the BLS data-collection system is precise and bias-free is—well, let's just say, overstated.

Even if the BLS had a perfect process, the context surrounding the 7.8% figure still bears serious skepticism. Consider the following:

In August, the labor-force participation rate in the U.S. dropped to 63.5%, the lowest since September 1981. By definition, fewer people in the workforce leads to better unemployment numbers. That's why the unemployment rate dropped to 8.1% in August from 8.3% in July.

Meanwhile, we're told in the BLS report that in the months of August and September, federal, state and local governments added 602,000 workers to their payrolls, the largest two-month increase in more than 20 years. And the BLS tells us that, overall, 873,000 workers were added in September, the largest one-month increase since 1983, during the booming Reagan recovery.

These three statistics—the labor-force participation rate, the growth in government workers, and overall job growth, all multidecade records achieved over the past two months—have to raise some eyebrows. There were no economists, liberal or conservative, predicting that unemployment in September would drop below 8%.

I know I'm not the only person hearing these numbers and saying, "Really? If all that's true, why are so many people I know still having such a hard time finding work? Why do I keep hearing about local, state and federal cutbacks?"

Enlarge Image


Close
Corbis
.
I sat through business reviews of a dozen companies last week as part of my work in the private sector, and not one reported better results in the third quarter compared with the second quarter. Several stayed about the same, the rest were down slightly.

The economy is not in a free-fall. Oil and gas are strong, automotive is doing well and we seem to be seeing the beginning of a housing comeback. But I doubt many of us know any businessperson who believes the economy is growing at breakneck speed, as it would have to be for unemployment to drop to 7.8% from 8.3% over the course of two months.

The reality is the economy is experiencing a weak recovery. Everything points to that, particularly the overall employment level, which is 143 million people today, compared with 146 million people in 2007.

Now, I realize my tweets about this matter have been somewhat incendiary. In my first tweet, sent the night before the unemployment figure was released, I wrote: "Tomorrow unemployment numbers for Sept. with all the assumptions Labor Department can make..wonder about participation assumption??" The response was a big yawn.

My next tweet, on Oct. 5, the one that got the attention of the Obama campaign and its supporters, read: "Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers."

As I said that same evening in an interview on CNN, if I could write that tweet again, I would have added a few question marks at the end, as with my earlier tweet, to make it clear I was raising a question.

But I'm not sorry for the heated debate that ensued. I'm not the first person to question government numbers, and hopefully I won't be the last. Take, for example, one of my chief critics in this go-round, Austan Goolsbee, former chairman of the Obama administration's Council of Economic Advisers. Back in 2003, Mr. Goolsbee himself, commenting on a Bush-era unemployment figure, wrote in a New York Times op-ed: "the government has cooked the books."

The good news is that the current debate has resulted in people giving the whole issue of unemployment data more thought. Moreover, it led to some of the campaign's biggest supporters admitting that the number merited a closer look—and even expressing skepticism. The New York Times in a Sunday editorial, for instance, acknowledged the 7.8% figure is "partly due to a statistical fluke."

The coming election is too important to be decided on a number. Especially when that number seems so wrong.

Mr. Welch was the CEO of General Electric for 21 years and is the founder of the Jack Welch Management Institute at Strayer University.

A version of this article appeared October 10, 2012, on page A19 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: I Was Right About That Strange Jobs Report.

______________________________________________________________________________________

As I said, there is something rotten in the US Dept of Labor, then again, there is something rotten in the White House.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

With the economy as bad as it is, Romney should win.

[Khadgar]

Jack Welch: I Was Right About That Strange Jobs Report
The economy would need to be growing at breakneck speed for unemployment to drop to 7.8% from 8.3% in the course of two months.

By JACK WELCH
Imagine a country where challenging the ruling authorities—questioning, say, a piece of data released by central headquarters—would result in mobs of administration sympathizers claiming you should feel "embarrassed" and labeling you a fool, or worse

Soviet Russia perhaps? Communist China? (Cuba as well, posted by Miami Shores)) Nope, that would be the United States right now, when a person (like me, for instance) suggests that a certain government datum (like the September unemployment rate of 7.8%) doesn't make sense.

Unfortunately for those who would like me to pipe down, the 7.8% unemployment figure released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) last week is downright implausible. And that's why I made a stink about it.

Before I explain why the number is questionable, though, a few words about where I'm coming from. Contrary to some of the sound-and-fury last week, I do not work for the Mitt Romney campaign. I am definitely not a surrogate. My wife, Suzy, is not associated with the campaign, either. She worked at Bain Consulting (not Bain Capital) right after business school, in 1988 and 1989, and had no contact with Mr. Romney.

The Obama campaign and its supporters, including bigwigs like David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs, along with several cable TV anchors, would like you to believe that BLS data are handled like the gold in Fort Knox, with gun-carrying guards watching their every move, and highly trained, white-gloved super-agents counting and recounting hourly.

Let's get real. The unemployment data reported each month are gathered over a one-week period by census workers, by phone in 70% of the cases, and the rest through home visits. In sum, they try to contact 60,000 households, asking a list of questions and recording the responses.

More in Opinion
"Happy Days Are Not Here Again"

Big Bird, Small President

Noonan: A Run on Romney Signs

Taranto: Tears of a Clown
.
Some questions allow for unambiguous answers, but others less so. For instance, the range for part-time work falls between one hour and 34 hours a week. So, if an out-of-work accountant tells a census worker, "I got one baby-sitting job this week just to cover my kid's bus fare, but I haven't been able to find anything else," that could be recorded as being employed part-time.

The possibility of subjectivity creeping into the process is so pervasive that the BLS's own "Handbook of Methods" has a full page explaining the limitations of its data, including how non-sampling errors get made, from "misinterpretation of the questions" to "errors made in the estimations of missing data."

Bottom line: To suggest that the input to the BLS data-collection system is precise and bias-free is—well, let's just say, overstated.

Even if the BLS had a perfect process, the context surrounding the 7.8% figure still bears serious skepticism. Consider the following:

In August, the labor-force participation rate in the U.S. dropped to 63.5%, the lowest since September 1981. By definition, fewer people in the workforce leads to better unemployment numbers. That's why the unemployment rate dropped to 8.1% in August from 8.3% in July.

Meanwhile, we're told in the BLS report that in the months of August and September, federal, state and local governments added 602,000 workers to their payrolls, the largest two-month increase in more than 20 years. And the BLS tells us that, overall, 873,000 workers were added in September, the largest one-month increase since 1983, during the booming Reagan recovery.

These three statistics—the labor-force participation rate, the growth in government workers, and overall job growth, all multidecade records achieved over the past two months—have to raise some eyebrows. There were no economists, liberal or conservative, predicting that unemployment in September would drop below 8%.

I know I'm not the only person hearing these numbers and saying, "Really? If all that's true, why are so many people I know still having such a hard time finding work? Why do I keep hearing about local, state and federal cutbacks?"

Enlarge Image


Close
Corbis
.
I sat through business reviews of a dozen companies last week as part of my work in the private sector, and not one reported better results in the third quarter compared with the second quarter. Several stayed about the same, the rest were down slightly.

The economy is not in a free-fall. Oil and gas are strong, automotive is doing well and we seem to be seeing the beginning of a housing comeback. But I doubt many of us know any businessperson who believes the economy is growing at breakneck speed, as it would have to be for unemployment to drop to 7.8% from 8.3% over the course of two months.

The reality is the economy is experiencing a weak recovery. Everything points to that, particularly the overall employment level, which is 143 million people today, compared with 146 million people in 2007.

Now, I realize my tweets about this matter have been somewhat incendiary. In my first tweet, sent the night before the unemployment figure was released, I wrote: "Tomorrow unemployment numbers for Sept. with all the assumptions Labor Department can make..wonder about participation assumption??" The response was a big yawn.

My next tweet, on Oct. 5, the one that got the attention of the Obama campaign and its supporters, read: "Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers."

As I said that same evening in an interview on CNN, if I could write that tweet again, I would have added a few question marks at the end, as with my earlier tweet, to make it clear I was raising a question.

But I'm not sorry for the heated debate that ensued. I'm not the first person to question government numbers, and hopefully I won't be the last. Take, for example, one of my chief critics in this go-round, Austan Goolsbee, former chairman of the Obama administration's Council of Economic Advisers. Back in 2003, Mr. Goolsbee himself, commenting on a Bush-era unemployment figure, wrote in a New York Times op-ed: "the government has cooked the books."

The good news is that the current debate has resulted in people giving the whole issue of unemployment data more thought. Moreover, it led to some of the campaign's biggest supporters admitting that the number merited a closer look—and even expressing skepticism. The New York Times in a Sunday editorial, for instance, acknowledged the 7.8% figure is "partly due to a statistical fluke."

The coming election is too important to be decided on a number. Especially when that number seems so wrong.

Mr. Welch was the CEO of General Electric for 21 years and is the founder of the Jack Welch Management Institute at Strayer University.

A version of this article appeared October 10, 2012, on page A19 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: I Was Right About That Strange Jobs Report.

______________________________________________________________________________________

As I said, there is something rotten in the US Dept of Labor, then again, there is something rotten in the White House.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

With the economy as bad as it is, Romney should win.

If you're going to copy/paste an article, link to the article. If you're going to copy/paste an article, edit the damned irrelevant bits out.

[Zaras]

As I said, there is something rotten in the US Dept of Labor, then again, there is something rotten in the White House.

You're wrong, Jack Welch is a paranoid shithead, and I'm worried that this whole Republican trutherism about everything they don't like is going to fuck everything up for the USA even worse than it already has.

[Revolutopia]

-snip-

Seriously, it is shit like this that makes so angry that Romney seems likely to win the election. In how for the last four years we have had to sit back and listen to Republicans effectively demonize everything that either Obama or the Democrats have attempted to do with claims of socialism, communism, fascism, racism, etc. All while at the same time trying to hinder any progress in advancing the country's well-being, and didn't even matter if they were pushing goals that used be previously bipartisan or even Republican. Yes, people used to criticize Bush but honestly I don't remember the Democrats acting like everything he touched was under auspices of destroying America. Nor do I remember anyone of giving any major attention to crazy conspiracy theories that anything positive during his term was just another sign of his administration's corruption.

Honestly, if the Republicans had at least given Obama a chance before declaring his presidency a failure and evil incinerate the idea of Mitt Romney as our next president wouldn't keep me up at night. However, now it seems extremely likely that we are going to reward the worst in American politics with us validating the Republican's strategy.

Finally, the icing atop of the shit is simply the fact that Romney is going to inherit a solely growing economy which the Republican will only credit him for thus only further strengthening their political clout. And with allowing them greater access to push their socially regressive bull on top of the country.

[Zaras]

-snip-

Seriously, it is shit like this that makes so angry that Romney seems likely to win the election. In how for the last four years we have had to sit back and listen to Republicans effectively demonize everything that either Obama or the Democrats have attempted to do with claims of socialism, communism, fascism, racism, etc. All while at the same time trying to hinder any progress in advancing the country's well-being, and didn't even matter if they were pushing goals that used be previously bipartisan or even Republican. Yes, people used to criticize Bush but honestly I don't remember the Democrats acting like everything he touched was under auspices of destroying America. Nor do I remember anyone of giving any major attention to crazy conspiracy theories that anything positive during his term was just another sign of his administration's corruption.

Honestly, if the Republicans had at least given Obama a chance before declaring his presidency a failure and evil incinerate the idea of Mitt Romney as our next president wouldn't keep me up at night. However, now it seems extremely likely that we are going to reward the worst in American politics with us validating the Republican's strategy.

Finally, the icing atop of the shit is simply the fact that Romney is going to inherit a solely growing economy which the Republican will only credit him for thus only further strengthening their political clout. And with allowing them greater access to push their socially regressive bull on top of the country.

Revolutopia just dropped some TRUTH BOMBS.

[Alien Space Bats]

May I remind everybody that this is not a political debate thread.

You can come in here and say that your favorite candidate ought to win. You can come in here and say that your favorite candidate will win. You can come in here and cry that the world is going to come to an end if your candidate doesn't win. But if you do any of those things, it should accompany and/or support a statement and/or argument involving at least one or more of the following:

• An analysis of the race.
  
  
• A suggested strategy that one or both candidates and/or campaigns ought to take and/or a suggested set of tactics one or both candidates and/or campaigns ought to use.
  
  
• A comment of Presidential politics in general, preferably accompanied by some kind of general historical, demographic, and/or statistical analysis.

That's what makes this thread different from the general campaign thread. The campaign thread is where you try to persuade people that your guy should win. That's where Miami Shores should have posted his comment, because while it may make a case for distrusting the unemployment numbers, it does not do so in a way that helps us better understand the Presidential race as a race and not as a choice.

Now, Miami Shores could have argued that the Romney campaign should attack the numbers as inaccurate based on Jack Welch's comments, and that would have made this thread the right place for him to have posted his remarks. He could have posted Jack Welch's comments and said that most people understand (or merely think) that the government cooks its unemployment figures all the time to help the boss, and used that as a statement in support of the argument that the October 5th BLS jobs report will not help Obama, and that would have made this thread the right place for him to have posted his remarks as well.

But he didn't do either of these things, and so his remarks don't belong here. It's important that we recognize this, so we avoid sidetracking the thread.

I am TG'ing Miami Shores and pointing him to this post, so that he will understand the reasons why such posts don't belong in this thread.

[Delmok]

OBAMA 2012!!!!!!!
DEFEAT ROMNEY & RYAN!!!!

[Silent Majority]

OBAMA 2012!!!!!!!
DEFEAT ROMNEY & RYAN!!!!

I see you didn't read the post directly before yours.

[The Steel Magnolia]

OBAMA 2012!!!!!!!
DEFEAT ROMNEY & RYAN!!!!

I see you didn't read the post directly before yours.

Already TG'd him.

On topic - ASB, FiveThirtyEight is showing Obama at a 67.9% chance of winning, and 293 Electoral Votes. This seems remarkable from a single debate performance - is this sort of decline in the polls common after a debate loss, and why is it that we're not seeing any huge decline in the post-debate "bounce"?

[Free South Califas]

Anyone who "didn't expect [Romney] to get away with [lying continuously]" is unfamiliar with the Presidential Debate Commission and its fundamental purpose, which is to lob softballs to Democrat and Republican candidates in corporate-funded debates designed to systematically exclude dissent, prevent them from participating in tough debates elsewhere, and normalize the process itself. When corporations wrested control of the debates from the League of Women Voters, this soft-on-fraud turn was inevitable.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

So I saw Obama's Big Bird ad last night during Letterman.

It has the potential, I think, to become one of the most effective ads of my lifetime.

First and foremost, it's funny and memorable as hell.

Second, it brilliantly turns one of the right's favorite recent criticisms of the Obama camp (that bringing up "Mitt Romney wants to kill Big Bird" is a distraction, making a mountain out of a molehill because there's nothing more substantial to attack him with) right back at Romney: it suggests that the right's culture wars and budget hawkishness (because PBS has been attacked from both angles) is merely an attempt to distract the American people from their intent to let their wealthy cronies (and, I suppose, bronies) wreak havoc with the economic security of the 99% for their own private enrichment.

Thoughts on how this ad will play?