The Dismal Record of Obamanomics Explained

   Bookmark and Share  A new video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation shows voters who care, how and why  Obamanomics is a dismal failure.   The approximately 6 minute long video offers a clear and concise explanation of how the tax and spend solutions that President Obama offered to stimulate our economy had the exact opposite effect.

The video explains everything from how the President’s first $800 billion stimulus package failed to produce jobs,  to how cash for clunkers proved to be a clunker that left America $1.4 billion poorer, and how other liberal endorsed Obama policies, rules, and regulations cost us more in jobs and capital than they created.

This short documentary also goes beyond simply explaining how Obama’s economic policies have failed us, it also goes right to the heart of the President’s attempt to make us believe his false logic behind the argument that while things may not be good, his policies have prevented them from being worse than they would have been had those policies not been enacted.  The narrator in the video explains how that while President Obama would have you believe that he inherited the worst since the Great Depression, the truth is that the economy who took control over in 2009 was still in better shape than the economy that Ronald Reagan from Democrats in 1981.  In this video you will even see how despite inheriting economic circumstances that were far worse than those facing Barack in 2009, in 1981 Ronald Reagan and his policies improved the nations economy at a far faster pace than Obamanomics has. It shows how while economic growth under Ronald Reagan was at 5.6% under Obama it has been that rate has been stuck at a painfully sluggish pace of 2.2%.  As for unemployment, while Reaganomics decreased the it by as much a% during his first three years in office, Obamanomics has brought down by a mere 1.8 percentage points.  And while inflation was reaching double digits when Reagan came to office, he cut that rising rate by two-thirds and got it down to 3.5%.  Under Barack Obama, inflation has in creased by 1.7%.

After seeing this video you will understand that for the last three and a half years, the only thing Barack Obama has succeeded to do is suppress the type of recovery which this nation uses experiences after a recession.  In the past the deeper the recession, the more robust the recovery is.  But Barack Obama has upended that historic reality.  Thanks to him and the liberal led Congress, America is in the midst of slowest economic recovery ever.

So sit back and watch this informative video.  It will not only give you a better understanding of the issue, it will also help you to see exactly how big a liar our President is.

Bookmark and Share

Trunkline 2012: Tuesday’s Tidbits from the Campaign Trail – 10/9/12

Bookmark and Share   Today’s tidbits from the trail include news about Romney’s rise in the polls,  Obama’s supporters threaten to riot, the DNC ‘s cash shortage, the President’s obsession with Big Bird, Obama’s initial belief that he won the first presidential debate, his lies about Romney and his own record, the president’s declining support among African-Americans, 10 dates from Obama’s first term to remember, the continued fallout from the Libyan terrorist attack and more:

Bookmark and Share

The Liar-In-Chief Hits New Height in Hypocrisy

  Bookmark and Share  When it comes attempts to define President Obama’s debate related claim that Mitt Romney is a liar, my first reaction is tell you that the claim is the best case of the pot calling the kettle black that one could ever imagine.  But that would be characterized by the left as blatantly racists.  So here’s how I would explain President Obama’s charge.

Ever since President Obama lost last week’s debate, the left became apoplectic and tried to work through a series of emotions that ranged from fear over losing the election and anger over the President’s ineptness, to disappointment with his performance and embarrassment over his inability to defend his record. Once their shock wore off and they were able to collect themselves they quickly offered up an endless array of excuses for the President’s truly disastrous debate performance.  Some suggested that he was preoccupied by an unfolding international crisis that was yet unknown to the general public or possibly even a personal crisis.  Others like Al Gore suggested altitude poisoning was to blame. But by the time morning came, the President’s campaign released their own excuse for his embarrassing performance in a talking points memo that went out to the leading liberal spinmeisters and the left immediately fell in line to spread the word.

According to the President and the left-wing propaganda machine, President Obama failed to beat Romney in the debate because he was thrown off by the lies Romney was telling throughout the debate.  According to the President and his people, Mitt Romney lied about his own record and plans for America as well as the President’s record and plans for the nation.

The problems with that excuse is that President Obama was the one who was clearly trying to lie his own way through the debate.  With a clear inability to defend his own horrific record against Mitt Romney, President Obama tried his best to continue waging the class warfare reelection strategy that has successfully energized his base.  Part of that strategy was to try and describe Mitt Romney’s economic proposals as a $5 trillion tax cut, mainly for the rich.

But as attested to in the latest Romney ad seen below this post, the only liar on stage in Denver last week was President Obama.

When it comes to Mitt Romney’s tax plan, what President Obama neglected to mention was that when he made the charge that Romney’s tax plan cut taxes by $5 trillion, he was actually lying by taking skewed numbers from a scoring by the Tax Policy Center.  That analysis claimed  the Romney plan shifted $86 billion in taxes from the well-off to the middle class. But the problem with that particular assumption is that it relies on a false narrative which contends the reduce rates would not spur economic growth and generate new tax revenue.   Dynamic scoring of the same Romney plan  concludes the economic growth generated by those reduced tax rates would fill $53 billion of that $86 billion hole.  As for the remaining gap, Romney’s plan  to eliminate exemptions on state and local bonds and life insurance policies, would would raise an additional $45 billion.   That means that by eliminating exemptions and prompting new growth, Romney’s plan is likely to actually lower top rates and still raise more revenue.

Making President Obama’s claims even more unreliable is that the author of the initial study that Obama was misinterpreting is  now admitting, that “under those conditions and policies, Romney’s plan “would be revenue neutral.”

But with all these numbers being discussed and explained you are probably still confused with where President Obama’s $5 trillion figure came from.  Well the truth is that it is a figure which he practically pulled straight out of his ass.

Obama took the Tax Policy Center study  which neglected to  figure in the ensuing economic growth that would make Romney’s plan revenue neutral and erroneously concluded that the plan would lead to $480 billion in lost revenues by 2015.  The Obama campaign then took that incorrect figure and multiplied it by a decade.  That left them with $4.8 trillion, which they then rounded up to $5 trillion.

So that explains the lie behind the man who was really trying to deceive voters… Barack Obama.

But that wasn’t the only lie President Obama tried to muddle through the first debate with.

President Obama claimed that Romney’s plan would raise taxes on middle class families yet this flies in the face of what The Associated Press and other studies concluded which is that Romney’s  plans would not raise taxes on anyone.

Our President also used the debate to claim that  Obamacare would make health care premiums more affordable.  According to him,  “when Obamacare is fully implemented, we are going to be in a position to show that costs are going down. Over the last two years, health care premiums have gone up — it is true — but they have gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years. We are already seeing progress.

But Factcheck.org found;

“Obama wrongly said that over the last two years, health care premiums have ‘gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years.’”

Meanwhile, The Associated Press noted ;

“In 2011, premiums jumped by 9 percent” and “this year’s 4 percent increase was more manageable, but the price tag for family coverage stands at $15,745, with employees paying more than $4,300 of that.”

On the issue of Social Security the President stated during the debate that;

“Social Security is structurally sound. It’s going to have to be tweaked the way it was by Ronald Reagan and Speaker — Democratic Speaker Tip O’Neill. But the basic structure is sound.”

Yet contrary to his claim, the Congressional Budget Office concludes that Social Security will run into financial deficits. Clearly that is not a structurally sound program.

So it would seem that President Obama dedicated his first debate in the 2012 election to doing exactly what he is trying to claim Mitt Romney did… lie.  Now where I come from, that is called hypocrisy.  It’s something that even liberals would normally shun in their leaders.  But something tells me that the left will handle this the same way they have with everything else Barack Obama has ever said and done.   They will refuse to hold him accountable.

Meanwhile, congressional investigations are now taking place as we try to uncover exactly what was behind the Obama lies surrounding the terrorist attack that killed our Libyan Ambassador and three other Americans.  But if all of that still isn’t enough to convince you that Barack Obama is our Liar-In-Chief, I suggest you see watch the video below.  It’s an original,  un-narrated documentary that looks at Obama and his first term with regards to transparency, healthcare, taxes, fairness, energy, and the national debt through his own words

Bookmark and Share

Mitt Romney’s Foreign Policy Speech at VMI – Full Video and Transcript

  Bookmark and Share  In what was an extraordinary statement of American leadership and strength, Mitt Romney offered the nation a major foreign policy speech at the Virginia Military Institute which echoed a forceful call for peace through strength and clarity of purpose.  Romney’s speech presented a national security and foreign policy vision that starkly contrasted with President Obama’s failing and muddled, lead-from-behind policy direction by outlining a definitive role for America in the community of nations. (See video and transcript of the speech below)

Romney’s well delivered and eloquent outline of his foreign policy vision focused on the turmoil brewing in Libya, Egypt, and Syria, where he said Obama has “failed” to lead but he also outlined his intention to restore and maintain America’s strength, especially in the case of America’s naval force which Romney pointed out is currently  at a level  not seen since 1916.

While the speech may not get the attention that it deserves, those who do take the time to listen to it will find themselves walking away with a sense of Mitt Romney that leaves them feeling confident in Mitt Romney and what is his unambiguous foreign policy direction for the nation.  Romney’s speech presented him with an opportunity to be presidential and he took full advantage of that opportunity by proving to be a clearheaded leader with the ability and plan to put the nation on a foreign policy path that will put America in  control of circumstances rather than place America at the mercy of circumstances.

Complete Transcript of Romney’s Speech

For more than 170 years, VMI has done more than educate students. It has guided their transformation into citizens, and warriors, and leaders. VMI graduates have served with honor in our nation’s defense, just as many are doing today in Afghanistan and other lands. Since the September 11th attacks, many of VMI’s sons and daughters have defended America, and I mourn with you the 15 brave souls who have been lost. I join you in praying for the many VMI graduates and all Americans who are now serving in harm’s way. May God bless all who serve, and all who have served.

Of all the VMI graduates, none is more distinguished than George Marshall—the Chief of Staff of the Army who became Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, who helped to vanquish fascism and then planned Europe’s rescue from despair. His commitment to peace was born of his direct knowledge of the awful costs and consequences of war.

General Marshall once said, “The only way human beings can win a war is to prevent it.” Those words were true in his time—and they still echo in ours.

Last month, our nation was attacked again. A U.S. Ambassador and three of our fellow Americans are dead—murdered in Benghazi, Libya. Among the dead were three veterans. All of them were fine men, on a mission of peace and friendship to a nation that dearly longs for both. President Obama has said that Ambassador Chris Stevens and his colleagues represented the best of America. And he is right. We all mourn their loss.

The attacks against us in Libya were not an isolated incident. They were accompanied by anti-American riots in nearly two dozen other countries, mostly in the Middle East, but also in Africa and Asia. Our embassies have been attacked. Our flag has been burned. Many of our citizens have been threatened and driven from their overseas homes by vicious mobs, shouting “Death to America.” These mobs hoisted the black banner of Islamic extremism over American embassies on the anniversary of the September 11th attacks.

As the dust settles, as the murdered are buried, Americans are asking how this happened, how the threats we face have grown so much worse, and what this calls on America to do. These are the right questions. And I have come here today to offer a larger perspective on these tragic recent events—and to share with you, and all Americans, my vision for a freer, more prosperous, and more peaceful world.

The attacks on America last month should not be seen as random acts. They are expressions of a larger struggle that is playing out across the broader Middle East—a region that is now in the midst of the most profound upheaval in a century. And the fault lines of this struggle can be seen clearly in Benghazi itself.

The attack on our Consulate in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012 was likely the work of forces affiliated with those that attacked our homeland on September 11th, 2001. This latest assault cannot be blamed on a reprehensible video insulting Islam, despite the Administration’s attempts to convince us of that for so long. No, as the Administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists who use violence to impose their dark ideology on others, especially women and girls; who are fighting to control much of the Middle East today; and who seek to wage perpetual war on the West.

We saw all of this in Benghazi last month—but we also saw something else, something hopeful. After the attack on our Consulate, tens of thousands of Libyans, most of them young people, held a massive protest in Benghazi against the very extremists who murdered our people. They waved signs that read, “The Ambassador was Libya’s friend” and “Libya is sorry.” They chanted “No to militias.” They marched, unarmed, to the terrorist compound. Then they burned it to the ground. As one Libyan woman said, “We are not going to go from darkness to darkness.”

This is the struggle that is now shaking the entire Middle East to its foundation. It is the struggle of millions and millions of people—men and women, young and old, Muslims, Christians and non-believers—all of whom have had enough of the darkness. It is a struggle for the dignity that comes with freedom, and opportunity, and the right to live under laws of our own making. It is a struggle that has unfolded under green banners in the streets of Iran, in the public squares of Tunisia and Egypt and Yemen, and in the fights for liberty in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Libya, and now Syria. In short, it is a struggle between liberty and tyranny, justice and oppression, hope and despair.

We have seen this struggle before. It would be familiar to George Marshall. In his time, in the ashes of world war, another critical part of the world was torn between democracy and despotism. Fortunately, we had leaders of courage and vision, both Republicans and Democrats, who knew that America had to support friends who shared our values, and prevent today’s crises from becoming tomorrow’s conflicts.

Statesmen like Marshall rallied our nation to rise to its responsibilities as the leader of the free world. We helped our friends to build and sustain free societies and free markets. We defended our friends, and ourselves, from our common enemies. We led. And though the path was long and uncertain, the thought of war in Europe is as inconceivable today as it seemed inevitable in the last century.

This is what makes America exceptional: It is not just the character of our country—it is the record of our accomplishments. America has a proud history of strong, confident, principled global leadership—a history that has been written by patriots of both parties. That is America at its best. And it is the standard by which we measure every President, as well as anyone who wishes to be President. Unfortunately, this President’s policies have not been equal to our best examples of world leadership. And nowhere is this more evident than in the Middle East.

I want to be very clear: The blame for the murder of our people in Libya, and the attacks on our embassies in so many other countries, lies solely with those who carried them out—no one else. But it is the responsibility of our President to use America’s great power to shape history—not to lead from behind, leaving our destiny at the mercy of events. Unfortunately, that is exactly where we find ourselves in the Middle East under President Obama.

The relationship between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Israel, our closest ally in the region, has suffered great strains. The President explicitly stated that his goal was to put “daylight” between the United States and Israel. And he has succeeded. This is a dangerous situation that has set back the hope of peace in the Middle East and emboldened our mutual adversaries, especially Iran.

Iran today has never been closer to a nuclear weapons capability. It has never posed a greater danger to our friends, our allies, and to us. And it has never acted less deterred by America, as was made clear last year when Iranian agents plotted to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador in our nation’s capital. And yet, when millions of Iranians took to the streets in June of 2009, when they demanded freedom from a cruel regime that threatens the world, when they cried out, “Are you with us, or are you with them?”—the American President was silent.

Across the greater Middle East, as the joy born from the downfall of dictators has given way to the painstaking work of building capable security forces, and growing economies, and developing democratic institutions, the President has failed to offer the tangible support that our partners want and need.

In Iraq, the costly gains made by our troops are being eroded by rising violence, a resurgent Al-Qaeda, the weakening of democracy in Baghdad, and the rising influence of Iran. And yet, America’s ability to influence events for the better in Iraq has been undermined by the abrupt withdrawal of our entire troop presence. The President tried—and failed—to secure a responsible and gradual drawdown that would have better secured our gains.

The President has failed to lead in Syria, where more than 30,000 men, women, and children have been massacred by the Assad regime over the past 20 months. Violent extremists are flowing into the fight. Our ally Turkey has been attacked. And the conflict threatens stability in the region.

America can take pride in the blows that our military and intelligence professionals have inflicted on Al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, including the killing of Osama bin Laden. These are real achievements won at a high cost. But Al-Qaeda remains a strong force in Yemen and Somalia, in Libya and other parts of North Africa, in Iraq, and now in Syria. And other extremists have gained ground across the region. Drones and the modern instruments of war are important tools in our fight, but they are no substitute for a national security strategy for the Middle East.

The President is fond of saying that “The tide of war is receding.” And I want to believe him as much as anyone. But when we look at the Middle East today—with Iran closer than ever to nuclear weapons capability, with the conflict in Syria threating to destabilize the region, with violent extremists on the march, and with an American Ambassador and three others dead likely at the hands of Al-Qaeda affiliates— it is clear that the risk of conflict in the region is higher now than when the President took office.

I know the President hopes for a safer, freer, and a more prosperous Middle East allied with the United States. I share this hope. But hope is not a strategy. We cannot support our friends and defeat our enemies in the Middle East when our words are not backed up by deeds, when our defense spending is being arbitrarily and deeply cut, when we have no trade agenda to speak of, and the perception of our strategy is not one of partnership, but of passivity.

The greater tragedy of it all is that we are missing an historic opportunity to win new friends who share our values in the Middle East—friends who are fighting for their own futures against the very same violent extremists, and evil tyrants, and angry mobs who seek to harm us. Unfortunately, so many of these people who could be our friends feel that our President is indifferent to their quest for freedom and dignity. As one Syrian woman put it, “We will not forget that you forgot about us.”

It is time to change course in the Middle East. That course should be organized around these bedrock principles: America must have confidence in our cause, clarity in our purpose and resolve in our might. No friend of America will question our commitment to support them… no enemy that attacks America will question our resolve to defeat them… and no one anywhere, friend or foe, will doubt America’s capability to back up our words.

I will put the leaders of Iran on notice that the United States and our friends and allies will prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. I will not hesitate to impose new sanctions on Iran, and will tighten the sanctions we currently have. I will restore the permanent presence of aircraft carrier task forces in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf region—and work with Israel to increase our military assistance and coordination. For the sake of peace, we must make clear to Iran through actions—not just words—that their nuclear pursuit will not be tolerated.

I will reaffirm our historic ties to Israel and our abiding commitment to its security—the world must never see any daylight between our two nations.

I will deepen our critical cooperation with our partners in the Gulf.

And I will roll back President Obama’s deep and arbitrary cuts to our national defense that would devastate our military. I will make the critical defense investments that we need to remain secure. The decisions we make today will determine our ability to protect America tomorrow. The first purpose of a strong military is to prevent war.

The size of our Navy is at levels not seen since 1916. I will restore our Navy to the size needed to fulfill our missions by building 15 ships per year, including three submarines. I will implement effective missile defenses to protect against threats. And on this, there will be no flexibility with Vladimir Putin. And I will call on our NATO allies to keep the greatest military alliance in history strong by honoring their commitment to each devote 2 percent of their GDP to security spending. Today, only 3 of the 28 NATO nations meet this benchmark.

I will make further reforms to our foreign assistance to create incentives for good governance, free enterprise, and greater trade, in the Middle East and beyond. I will organize all assistance efforts in the greater Middle East under one official with responsibility and accountability to prioritize efforts and produce results. I will rally our friends and allies to match our generosity with theirs. And I will make it clear to the recipients of our aid that, in return for our material support, they must meet the responsibilities of every decent modern government—to respect the rights of all of their citizens, including women and minorities… to ensure space for civil society, a free media, political parties, and an independent judiciary… and to abide by their international commitments to protect our diplomats and our property.

I will champion free trade and restore it as a critical element of our strategy, both in the Middle East and across the world. The President has not signed one new free trade agreement in the past four years. I will reverse that failure. I will work with nations around the world that are committed to the principles of free enterprise, expanding existing relationships and establishing new ones.

I will support friends across the Middle East who share our values, but need help defending them and their sovereignty against our common enemies.

In Libya, I will support the Libyan people’s efforts to forge a lasting government that represents all of them, and I will vigorously pursue the terrorists who attacked our consulate in Benghazi and killed Americans.

In Egypt, I will use our influence—including clear conditions on our aid—to urge the new government to represent all Egyptians, to build democratic institutions, and to maintain its peace treaty with Israel. And we must persuade our friends and allies to place similar stipulations on their aid.

In Syria, I will work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets. Iran is sending arms to Assad because they know his downfall would be a strategic defeat for them. We should be working no less vigorously with our international partners to support the many Syrians who would deliver that defeat to Iran—rather than sitting on the sidelines. It is essential that we develop influence with those forces in Syria that will one day lead a country that sits at the heart of the Middle East.

And in Afghanistan, I will pursue a real and successful transition to Afghan security forces by the end of 2014. President Obama would have you believe that anyone who disagrees with his decisions in Afghanistan is arguing for endless war. But the route to more war – and to potential attacks here at home – is a politically timed retreat that abandons the Afghan people to the same extremists who ravaged their country and used it to launch the attacks of 9/11. I will evaluate conditions on the ground and weigh the best advice of our military commanders. And I will affirm that my duty is not to my political prospects, but to the security of the nation.

Finally, I will recommit America to the goal of a democratic, prosperous Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the Jewish state of Israel. On this vital issue, the President has failed, and what should be a negotiation process has devolved into a series of heated disputes at the United Nations. In this old conflict, as in every challenge we face in the Middle East, only a new President will bring the chance to begin anew.

There is a longing for American leadership in the Middle East—and it is not unique to that region. It is broadly felt by America’s friends and allies in other parts of the world as well— in Europe, where Putin’s Russia casts a long shadow over young democracies, and where our oldest allies have been told we are “pivoting” away from them … in Asia and across the Pacific, where China’s recent assertiveness is sending chills through the region … and here in our own hemisphere, where our neighbors in Latin America want to resist the failed ideology of Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers and deepen ties with the United States on trade, energy, and security. But in all of these places, just as in the Middle East, the question is asked: “Where does America stand?”

I know many Americans are asking a different question: “Why us?” I know many Americans are asking whether our country today—with our ailing economy, and our massive debt, and after 11 years at war—is still capable of leading.

I believe that if America does not lead, others will—others who do not share our interests and our values—and the world will grow darker, for our friends and for us. America’s security and the cause of freedom cannot afford four more years like the last four years. I am running for President because I believe the leader of the free world has a duty, to our citizens, and to our friends everywhere, to use America’s great influence—wisely, with solemnity and without false pride, but also firmly and actively—to shape events in ways that secure our interests, further our values, prevent conflict, and make the world better—not perfect, but better.

Our friends and allies across the globe do not want less American leadership. They want more—more of our moral support, more of our security cooperation, more of our trade, and more of our assistance in building free societies and thriving economies. So many people across the world still look to America as the best hope of humankind. So many people still have faith in America. We must show them that we still have faith in ourselves—that we have the will and the wisdom to revive our stagnant economy, to roll back our unsustainable debt, to reform our government, to reverse the catastrophic cuts now threatening our national defense, to renew the sources of our great power, and to lead the course of human events.

Sir Winston Churchill once said of George Marshall: “He … always fought victoriously against defeatism, discouragement, and disillusion.” That is the role our friends want America to play again. And it is the role we must play.

The 21st century can and must be an American century. It began with terror, war, and economic calamity. It is our duty to steer it onto the path of freedom, peace, and prosperity.

The torch America carries is one of decency and hope. It is not America’s torch alone. But it is America’s duty – and honor – to hold it high enough that all the world can see its light.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

Bookmark and Share

New White House 2012 Projection Has Romney Winning By 24 Electoral Votes

  Bookmark and Share With 29 days remaining in the race for President, White House 2012’s latest analysis of polls, circumstances, and conditions, concludes that there is a swing towards Mitt Romney in the Electoral College that is so pronounced that the Romney-Ryan ticket has increased its lead over the Obama-Biden ticket by at least 24 electoral votes.  The last White House 2012 projection had Mitt Romney winning 273 electoral votes to the presidents 265 electoral votes.  Today Romney stands at 281 electoral votes to 257 for the President.

For the first time, the latest projection gives Romney the all important state of Ohio, which up to now has been written off by White House 2012 as an almost certain win for President Obama. However, small shifts which have revealed themselves in most of the polls figured in to the Real Clear Politics average of polls since Romney’ stellar debate performance last Wednesday, now indicate that if the numbers hold up, Romney will win Ohio, a change that significantly increases the number of ways that Romney can reach the magic number of 270 that is needed to win the presidential race in the electoral college.

While Romney seems to be gaining momentum, it is too early to call it a steady trend, especially given the fact that while Romney has picked up Ohio in the newest projection, New Hampshire and Nevada which Romney did have in column last week, have flipped back to President Obama today.  The good news is that combined, New Hampshire and Nevada have a total of only 10 electoral votes while by itself Ohio has a total of 18 electoral votes.  So even if Romney did lose Nevada and New Hampshire, he stands on better ground after picking up the Buckeye State.  However; it is important to note that White House 2012 is being very conservative by flipping New Hampshire and Nevada to the Obama-Biden ticket.  While the RCP average has pushed the President’s lead in those two states to be in excess of the 3.7% margin of error which we give to Mitt Romney to compensate for each polls poor judgment in the use the 2008 turnout models, other factors prove to be working in Mitt Romney’s favor and allow us to give the President those states by only the slimmest of margins. So both New Hampshire and Nevada are now only barely light blue for the President and they could easily turn pink for Romney at a moment’s notice.

While most states are clearly leaning towards one candidate or the other, White House 2012 is currently only considering there to be seven battleground states.  They are Colorado, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, and Virginia.  Of those states, White House 2012 currently projects the following outcomes;

White House 2012 does see the potential for Romney to become much more competitive in Wisconsin, New Mexico, and possibly Michigan but for now, we do not consider them to be battleground states.

Other Favorable Indicators for Romney

As the race continues to evolve, this projection will change, however; at the moment the race is shaping up to be one that is moving in Mitt Romney’s direction.

For instance, it is with good reason that we continue to forecast Romney victories in the critical states of Florida and Virginia.

While some polls show small Romney leads in those states, most all other polls show Romney to have at least closed the small previous gap that existed between him and the President by as much as half or more.  For example, the latest number from PPP, a Democrat leaning polling outfit, shows that in Virginia, Obama’s lead has shrunk from +5  to +3.  While that Obama lead might not seem like good news for Romney, it is actually very good news when you consider the fact that by using the same turnout model from 2008, the PPP sampling finds this smaller Obama lead even after still giving Democrats a +6 advantage over Republicans.

Furthermore; it is that same Democrat advantage that polls are giving to the President which we see in other states such as Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire and all the other critical swing states.  Yet despite this Democrat advantage, Romney is gaining on the President.  So much so that WH12 sees evidence that indicates the Romney-Ryan ticket will probably not only win the election, they will probably win it by an even wider margin than anyone thinks possible.

Adding to this positive direction for Romney are indications that his own internal polling in at least two states. Currently, those internal polls are said to show Virginia and Ohio show him beating Obama by as much as 3.0% and 4.5%, respectively.

Conclusion;

The recent questionable jobs report has provided a slight spike in consumer confidence but it has not yet translated in to a bounce for the President.  At the same time, President Obama’s approval ratings continue to remain at or below 50%, a position not conducive for reelection of an incumbent President. 

Meanwhile, after his initial debate performance Mitt Romney has established himself as a real threat to the reelection of President Obama.  For the first time since their conventions, Romney is seeing evidence of his base becoming excited with his candidacy and there are signs that undecided voters are moving in his direction.  But Republicans must be careful to not consider this a trend until and unless future polls over the course of the next week show these recent numbers to still be moving in the right direction.  However; at the moment the Romney-Ryan ticket seems to have blocked President Obama’s own forward momentum in the polls and at the same time has finally gotten his campaign moving at pace that could turn the tables on the Obama-Biden and make them the ones with fewer paths to victory.  But to do that, Romney must be sure to keep the momentum moving in the right direction and at the right pace.  To do that, Romney must avoid any stumbles on the campaign trail and he must make sure that an endless repetitive stream of his well crafted 30 second ads are driving home his message and allowing it to sink in among the voters who have a new found respect for Romney after his first debate and are now more receptive to his message than they have been at any other point in this election.

The Projection Formula

The White House 2012 projection takes the Real Clear Politics average of polls and compensates for the outdated 2008 turnout models being used in each in poll by compensating for the under-counting of Republican turnout by adding to Romney’s total, the 3.7% average margin of error in the seven key swing states of Colorado, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, and Virginia.  Then along with a dose of personal political instinct, our projection incorporates other factors in to the equation such as the unemployment rates of individual states and the organizational strength of each state’s Party. 

Bookmark and Share

Internal Polls Have Romney Ahead in at Least 2 Pivotal Swing States

  Bookmark and Share   According to Breitbat editor Mike Flynn, the Romney campaign has internal polls that now show the Romney-Ryan ticket ahead of President Obama in two important battleground states… Ohio and New Hampshire.  According to two tweets posted by Flynn  on his Twitter feed, Romney’s internal polls have him beating the President in New Hampshire by 3.0%, and an almost unimaginably wider margin of 4.5% in Ohio.

If these numbers are true, this would suggest that my own estimation of a Romney victory that will be much bigger than most people think possible, could be shaping up.   Especially if Mitt Romney is ahead in Ohio.

While I have sensed that this race is not quite as close as most polls indicate, my inability to totally discount the preponderance of public polling numbers that are out there has been leading me to conclude that in 2012, the G.O.P. may win the White House without Ohio for the first time in history. Part of the reason for that opinion has been due to the available polling data.  The other part is my knowing that President Obama is going to do everything possible to win the Buckeye State for himself.  Doing so would leave Romney with significantly fewer paths to victory.  But aggressive campaigning by Romney in several other key states, specifically Iowa, Colorado, New Hampshire, Nevada and of course Virginia and Florida, has led me to conclude that while Team Romney has by no means written off Ohio, they are actively working on Plan B…. the plan to win the election without Ohio if necessary.

But if these leaked internal polls are accurate, Mitt Romney is currently on his way to being able to carry out his preferred plan of winning the election with Ohio and the way I see it, if he can do that, Americans will be stunned to find out on November 7th that Romney beat President Obama by far more than anyone predicted.

If the Romney-Ryan ticket can win Ohio, that bodes quite well for additional victories in swing states like Florida, Virginia, Iowa, Colorado, and New Hampshire.  Given the make-up of Ohio, it is very good bellwether of the sentiments that exist in those aforementioned states.  Furthermore, a lead in Ohio would also indicates that Nevada is quite winnable.  Even more stunning is that it could be a sign that Romney is in contention for wins in other states like Wisconsin, which according to most polls is currently slipping away from the G.O.P. presidential ticket.  No matter what though, a lead in Ohio would significantly turn the tables on the Obama-Biden ticket by suddenly making them the ticket with fewer paths available to them to reach the magic number of 270 in the Electoral College.

Unfortunately for Romney backers, the reliability of this second and now third-hand information is not enough for us to hang our hats on yet.

While all campaigns conduct internal polls, they do not spend much time publicly talking about them or releasing the data and information contained in them.  By law, if a campaign releases any numbers from their internal polls, they must release the entire poll.  However, as is always the case with politics, campaigns can and do find ways to see that certain tib-bits somehow leak out for public consumption without being caught.  In this case,  no one can be sure of where or how Mike Flynn got hold of these numbers.  But if he did somehow get a look at the Romney campaign’s actual internal poll numbers for Ohio and New Hampshire, the news contained in his two tweets changes the narrative of this election by turning President in to the underdog in the race.

If the numbers Flynn released are actually from the Romney campaign’s internal polls, you can rest assured that they are accurate.  Mainly because of Neil Newhouse, the man who put those numbers together.

Neil Newhouse is Romney’s chief pollster and globally, one of the best pollsters around.   He is a co-founder of Public Opinion Strategies, a national political and public affairs survey research firm that has been described as “the leading Republican polling company” in the country and in 2011 he was named “Pollster of the Year” by the American Association of Political Consultants for his work on Scott Brown’s winning Senate campaign in Massachusetts.

At Public Opinion Strategies, Newhouse developed a culture and approach to winning that is practically unsurpassed as he successfully helped political candidates win tough campaigns and scored hard-fought successes in the public affairs arena for some of America’s leading corporations and associations.  Through his polling efforts Newhouse has been a master at taking accurate polls and using the information derived from them to successfully tailor the type of winning messages that have allowed his candidates to get elected.  So if Neil Newhouse’s polling does actually have Romney up by as much as 3.0% in New Hampshire and 4.5% in Ohio, chances are that the vast majority of public polls which are basing their models on outdated 2008 turnout models, are offering us a very misleading perception of just how tight the election will actually be.

Bookmark and Share

New Romney Ad Outlines the Cost of the Recent Jobs Numbers

 Bookmark and Share  In the wake of the latest report on jobs numbers to come out of the Obama Administration,  Mitt Romney’s campaign has issued a new campaign ad (see ad in video below this post) called “The Facts Are Clear”.  That report recently indicated that the unemployment rate is now at its lowest level since the President took office.  However, for reasons explained exceptionally well here, many find those numbers to say the least, misleading, but this ad does not directly challenge those numbers.  Instead, it questions the high cost which supposedly produced those improving but still dismal numbers.

The ad is another simple but succinct 30 second spot which drives home the point that facts still prove President Obama’s policies are not working.

With an interesting twist, the ad focusses on President Obama’s spending policies, specifically his deficit busting stimulus programs which the President often claims has led to the creation and saving of jobs.  The ad suggests that even if the most recent jobs report is accurate, the President’s spending policies that he would have you believe are the reason for the drop in unemployment has added almost as much debt as all forty-three previous Presidents combined.

The ad states;

“President Obama says he’s creating jobs. But he’s really creating debt. The facts are clear. Obama’s four deficits are the four largest in U.S. history.

He’s adding almost as much debt as all forty-three previous presidents combined. And over thirty cents of every dollar Obama spends is borrowed. Much of it from countries like China.

He’s not just wasting money.

He’s borrowing it, and then wasting it.

We can’t afford four more years.”

While this commerical is not directly connected to the controversial new jobs report, it does help to put those numbers in the right perspective for voters and it does so by raising 2 key points;

  • After 4 long years is an arguable but undeniably miniscule 0.3% drop in unemployment actually worth all the deficit spending behind the President’s  job creation policies that went into achieving that deceptively good number?  The ad argues that even if the unemployment numbers are accurate, all the money spent and debt accumulated simply makes those results too little, too late.

Point two;

  • To make matters worse than most American know them to be, not only has President Obama’s tax, spend, and strangle the economy with regulation policies not been creating, if any jobs,  they have ultimately sold future generations of Americans to China by borrowing money from the Chinese that keeps us in debt to them.

The ad is perfect.  Like many of Romney’s other more recent ads, it is not an example of a stunning, creative marketing scheme.  it is not an ingenious masterful Ronald Reagan “Morning In America” ad.  However; the ad will be extremely with targeted airings and the money to repeat it enough times to sink in to the mind of the independent voters in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Virginia… the swing voters in the battleground states that Romney needs to win the election.

Most Americans won’t see this ad.  Most Americans live in states which are predictably going to give their electoral votes to either Romney or President Obama.  But you can rest assured that the Americans who will be seeing this and similar Romney ads are the ones that Romney needs to see it.  And if they are repeated enough times in the same households, the narrative behind the points in this ad, which is that we can’t afford four more years of Barack Obama, will settle in to the subconscious of the critical undecided, swing voters in those households… even if they do not consciously realize that is settling in.


Bookmark and Share

%d bloggers like this: