Charles Krauthammer

...nails it.

Obviously, he's been reading Od's Blog.

My Wife Weighs In

My Filipina wife has a thoughtful opinion on the US election. She figures voters felt, given the economic mess he inherited, that Obama just had not been given his fair chance to show what he could do. It would have seemed unfair to dump him after four years given the circumstances. This perhaps mattered more than usual because he was the first black president.

I think this rings true to something in the back of my own mind. While I wanted to see Romney win, I also was not entirely comfortable with seeing Obama disappear from public life. Something about it would not have felt right.

That something may have been the precedent of the first ever black presidency ending as a failure. It is not the healthiest thing for the country if that turns out to be so.

On Republican Self-Doubt

As usual, the day after the election has led to a lot of soul searching among Republican-leaning commentators. Is the Republican Party broken? Has the US electorate permanently changed? Was Romney the wrong candidate?

This is the sort of thinking Jack Kerouac meant originally by “hung up.” All things must pass; this will too. Nothing is as significant as it looks at the time. This was an important loss, but things may be completely different next time. Things were completely different as recently as 2010.

What lost the election for Mitt Romney? A unique constellation of events that will not happen just that way again. I think the largest share of blame goes to Hurricane Sandy.

It is not a time for panic, nor a time for making grand changes to the Republican Party's brand. A lot of commentators are shocked because, in their--our--hearts, they thought they understood the American people, and the American people were with them. Now they discover they, and not, or not just, the Mainstream Media, were out of touch. This can feel like a betrayal; or like culture shock.

This feeling makes little sense, in an election decided by perhaps 4% of the popular vote. There is no “the people,” after all. As Hamilton said to Jefferson, “Your 'people,' sir, is a great beast.” The bottom line is that we were a little arrogant. Too much talking, not enough listening.

If there are any changes that should be made, to the Republican platform, my first suggestion would be to avoid any nativist or anti-immigration policies. Hispanics ought to be Republicans, given their Catholicism and their cultural conservatism; it is anomalous that they are not. And the US is probably lucky to have a stream of immigrants who share so much in terms of culture. Being pro-immigrant is the classic liberal position, and the best of the American tradition. I would hate to see any “multicultural” accommodations; that is cultural suicide, besides being patronizingly racist. But letting people become Americans who choose the US voluntarily? Yes.

My second suggestion is to push something like George McGovern's Guaranteed Annual Income. This too is a good liberal position, it would do much good, and it would actually cut costs. At the same time, it would cut off the Democratic claim that Republicans do not care about the poor at the knees.

In a candidate, what the right needs most is another great communicator. Someone who can explain policies so as to make the general public agree can do far more than someone who just shifts policies to reflect whatever the general public already thinks. There is little point to the latter. This is just as necessary in the primaries as in the general election.

Obama's Tears

I don’t know who’s going to win the vote in the US today, but one thing seems clear to me: Obama expects to lose.

He shed visible tears at his closing rally last night. Whatever the proximate cause, this is not a man in an exhilarated mood. And for “No Drama Obama,” famous for acting so cool? Something must hurt badly.

His campaign’s parting words were a warning to their troops not to panic if unofficial early exit pools seem to favour Romney. Just good advice, perhaps; but it is also the advice they would have to give if they were expecting a big Romney win. And in the past, exit polling has tended to favour Democrats.

Indeed, Obama’s campaign has looked all along as though it is expecting to lose. Using Bill Clinton so heavily, for example. A humiliation for a sitting president; and Obama is said to have resisted even letting him speak at the convention.

Going negative on Romney early, and sticking to that tack throughout, was also a weirdly defensive tactic. It was bound to alienate independents for the sake of firing up the base. It is the kind of strategy designed to prevent a collapse rather than win.

I suspected they might be doing this because they knew something was coming that was going to hurt the campaign badly. Some October surprise. It didn’t; unless it was Benghazi. Perhaps they know something from their internal polling, and from their knowledge of their own ground game. For example, they may have a far better idea than anyone else, including the independent pollsters, of just how many Obama voters they actually turned out in their early voting push.

Dixville Notch

... has voted.

Obama 5, Romney 5.

So far, the election results are neck and neck ...

Pre-Election Wrapup. Maybe

A week ago, I thought it was all over. I expected momentum to put Romney over the top in the US election, seeing no likely event that could change said momentum.

Neo-Hurricane Sandy has changes said momentum. Bottom line is that Obama looks really good as president. And, in the end, that matters. He’s a good figurehead. Sandy photo-ops are helping him in the polls.

And, if you believe the polls, Obama is now going to win. They’re even nationwide, and he has a persistent tiny advantage in the swing states that matter.

I do not believe the polls. For reasons I’ve already given, they smell funny to me. I think we have a lot of shy Tories out there.

I’m shaving my prediction back to a 3-5% win for Romney in the popular vote. That should be big enough to pull the electoral college along as well.

Not that I’m sanguine about it. On election night, when the first returns come in from EST, I’d watch Pennsylvania and North Carolina. If Pennsylvania is called for Romney, it’s over. Romney will win. If North Carolina is called for Obama, it’s over. Obama will win. If neither of these things happen, it’s just about down to Ohio.

I see the following states as essentially 50/50, if I’m right about the polls and the popular vote: Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Give Romney a 50/50 split of these, and he wins.

Shy Tories

Nerves are getting frayed now on the right. The lead Romney had gained over Obama is not lengthening in the latest polls; instead, the race is tightening up. At the same time, Romney seems never to have broken into the lead in Ohio, which he almost needs to win.

But a recent poll gives us some suggestion how significant the Shy Tory/Bradley effect might be in this new era of unreliable polling, when only 9% of contacts will even cooperate with the pollster. A Marist poll of Iowa shows that 45% of Iowans have already voted. As it happens, the state keeps tallies. It reports that 32.2% have already voted.

The difference between those numbers is the Shy Tory factor. Everyone figures it is more socially responsible to have already voted; both campaigns are urging it. So that many folks are prepared to lie about it to a stranger.

It follows that they are equally likely to lie about whom they are going to support. If voting for Obama is thought to be the more socially acceptable position, his numbers could be out by a similar margin. That is, if he is currently polling 47%, he may really only have 35% support—a historic Republican landslide.

A different poll, WaPo/ABC’s national one, claims those who have already voted or who plan to cast early ballots break for Obama 57 to 42 percent; whereas those who say they plan to vote on election day break for Romney, 54 to 43 percent.

It is odd that there would be this wide discrepancy. Especially since other measures suggest the Republicans are, on the whole, more energized this cycle than are Democrats. One would expect those who are more energized to be more likely to vote early.

Putting the two figures together makes me suspect that most of the people who are fibbing about voting early are also saying they voted for Obama. Suggesting the Shy Tory/Bradley effect is boosting Obama’s poll numbers.

I think there’s a decent chance that the numbers among those who say they plan to vote on election day are the real numbers overall: 54% Romney, 43% Obama.

A historic blowout.

Again, polls that do not control for party affiliation are coming up with odd figures for party affiliation: historically high numbers of Democrats likely to vote. This is intrinsically unlikely--Democratic enthusiasm is lower this year than 2008, and there are fewer registered Democrats. So again, it looks like Shy Toryism is making people say they are Democrats who are not.

We’ll see…

Obama's Miscalculation; Romney's Shift

Obama’s campaign strategy of attacking Romney may have blown up on him in more ways than one. It is not just that Romney, by showing up at the debates and sounding moderate and reasonable, easily and instantly made the attacks looks false. It is not just that the attacks threw away Obama’s chief advantage, his likability, making him sound, angry, extreme, and disingenuous. It is also what probably enabled Romney to move to the centre in the debates, to appeal to independents. Under normal circumstances he probably could not do this without angering or disaffecting his base. But by putting him under attack, and what seemed unfair attack, Obama encouraged Republicans to rally around him. They will now turn out to vote for him in Hurricane Sandy force no matter what.

No October Surprise

Boo! the ghosts of Octobers past.

In predicting a Romney win, I am assuming no event will arise to reverse the current momentum. I am betting against a proverbial October surprise.

Time alone makes that less likely. The one October surprise I most expected, an Israeli bombing of Iran, is surely not going to happen before the election now. If the Israelis had calculated that they had to do it before the election, they would have done it well before, so that as much dust as possible could settle before voting in the US. They do not want to help Obama get re-elected. If they have waited this long, it makes sense to wait just a bit longer. If Obama wins, they can go as early as November 7. If Romney wins, they may not have to go.

Obama does not have the option of a “Wag the Dog” adventure to rally the nation behind him. He can’t suddenly go into Syria, for example. The US is too war-weary. Anything that looked like voluntary involvement on Obama’s part would work against him.

What else might happen? A terrorist attack? If so, this works in Romney’s favour, not Obama’s. Obama has staked his reputation too plainly on getting Bin Laden, with the implication that he is the conqueror of Al Qaeda. He has to at least look better than Bush post-9/11 on this score. This is the obvious explanation for the administration’s denial for two weeks that the Benghazi attack was an act of terrorism.

An economic collapse in Europe or China? Again, works for Romney, against Obama, as Romney is the guy who’s supposed to know economics.

Some sudden peace gesture by Chavez, Ahmadinejad, or Kim? This has actually been rumoured. But it would be hard to predict how this would play. It would have to be something substantial not to look like a stall. But if substantial, it would look as though they were seeking to influence an American election, or even as if they were working with Obama. Since they are America’s enemies, this does not necessarily reflect on Obama favourably. Probably the reverse.

That leaves some personal scandal. Here again, the possibilities favour Romney. He seems to be a genuinely straight-up guy in terms of his personal life. Not drinking eliminates a lot of opportunities for scandal. A former leader of his church, still married to his high school sweetheart. This could all be a hypocritical sham, sure. But he’s the son of a famous man; he grew up in the public spotlight. What are the chances he could have maintained such a sham for so long?

On Obama’s side, by contrast, his early life is obscure, so that it is possible to imagine something troubling there that we do not yet know. In fact, there are many rumours about this—not just the bagatelle about his birth certificate. If the reader has not seen them, I am not going to repeat them.

If, however, the Romney campaign has anything on Obama, they probably won’t release it. If they are winning anyway, as they seem to be, there is no point in doing so. And any slinging of mud holds risks—the chance of a backfire is fairly high.

Nice try, Donald Trump. Nice Try, Gloria Allred.

What Happened to Libya?

The most striking thing about the Third Presidential debate is that it led off with a question about the attack in Libya, seemingly tailor made for Romney to go after Obama on this, and he did not.

I think he was wise not to.

That was the one question and the one attack Obama was most expecting. He would certainly have a well-rehearsed answer prepared, and walking into it risked giving Obama a slam dunk first thing in the debate, starting the debate on the wrong foot for Romney. If Obama did not have a zinger, at best, it would be too easy for him to wriggle out of responsibility. It would have just been a wasted exchange.

There is a problem with ever going after a sitting president on any specific aspect of foreign policy: he has access to secret intelligence that the challenger does not have. This gives him a huge automatic advantage. Even if the intelligence supports the challenger, the incumbent can lie about it and never got caught. Or at least not until thirty or fifty years later.

Romney Will Win

Ready for framing.

I think the 2012 US Presidential Race is over. Momentum should now carry Romney over the top. With two weeks to go, there are no more good chances to change it. I expect about a seven point win, comparable to Obama's win over McCain four years ago.

Romney's likability is now equal to or greater than Obama's, according to the polls. If likability is equal, the focus shifts to competence. Romney has an edge there, on the economy, and it's the economy everyone is concerned about.

Obama Wins One

Stock photo of Obama smiling. But why?

The post-debate snap polls show a clear win for Obama this time.

Will it matter? Maybe not. First, given the economic situation, Americans are not thinking much about foreign policy. All Romney needed to do in those circumstances is come across as plausible, and as someone who would not start a war. That seems to be what he concentrated on in the debate, and he succeeded, by all accounts. Had he gone hard after Obama, all he might have done is shift the focus of the campaign to foreign policy, which is not his best argument. Winning the debate as a debate, for him, might have been a losing strategy.

Obama, on the other hand, may have lost some campaign ground in exchange for winning the debate. He was aggressive once again; people are talking about his “death stare.” This will cost him likability, and likability is, I have argued, the most important ingredient in American electoral success.

I don't know whether Obama had a better strategy available to him. If he had stayed calm and presidential, the debate would probably have been dull, and the focus would have remained on the economy. He needed to wave some red flags to try to get the bull to charge. But then, everything hinged on Romney being rattled into making some obvious blunder, like Ford saying Poland was not under Soviet domination back in '76. Or at least sounding angry and warlike. He didn't.

So the debate probably won't by itself cause any big shift in the campaign dynamics, but it will confirm Romney as a safe choice.

Going into the debate, Romney had the momentum. This debate was the last obvious chance to switch that momentum. Unless there is a late "October surprise" or gaffe by either candidate, that momentum in a tight race looks likely to carry Romney over the top; RealClearPolitics's poll of polls currently has Romney at 47.6 vs 47.2, even with the widespread apparent pro-Democratic bias in the polls. 

I note, though, with interest and surprise, that the InTrade market, usually extremely reliably, still leans strongly toward an Obama win. Does somebody know something about an October surprise we don't know?

On to Debate Three

Teddy Roosevelt: "Speak softly and carry a big stick."

Now comes the third debate. I think this one is the greatest challenge for Romney; it is not his field, and his best strategy throughout has been to keep the focus on the economy. So how does he approach this?

His biggest concern has to be to prevent any perception that he would be likely to get the US engaged in any more wars. Obama will surely make the claim, the memory of G. W. Bush's two wars will make it plausible, and the US is sick and tired of war.

After that, he must simply sound knowledgeable on foreign policy. He must convince people that he would be a capable hand at the helm.

Only after that, he should take the opportunity to go after Obama on Libya and on the shambolic situation in the Middle East.

Statue of Ronald Reagan in Warsaw. With flowers.

His best theme is “peace through strength,” citing how Reagan ended the Cold War not by open combat, but by improving the US economy and boosting US weapons programs (Remember Star Wars? Remember the “Peacekeeper missile”?) to the extent that the Soviet Union could no longer compete financially.

Peacekeeper Missile in silo.

Romney should project the idea, not that the world is a dangerous place, but that the US is intrinsically far stronger than its likely opponents. Within a few years, North America can be self-sufficient in energy and oil. Iran is a third world country with an unstable government. China, an economic if not a military threat, is facing demographic doom. North Korea is starving, for goodness sake. These guys are angry pygmies. All the US needs is resolve. But visible weakness is the worst way to avoid war. Becoming deeply indebted to China is thew worst way. Gratuitously bowing to foreign leaders is the worst way. Broadcasting a date of departure is the worst way. Saying we (they) are shifting away from a region is the worst way. It makes future war more likely, because it emboldens America's enemies to do something foolish.

Strong at home; strong abroad.

Winston Churchill: Forearmed is Forewarned.

Late Thoughts on the Second US Presidential Debate

Obamney.

I do not have TV currently. Last night, I finally got to watch the second US presidential debate for myself. I think, on balance, it will help Romney.

Scored as a debate, it was a draw, or possibly an Obama win. But that does not account for context. Obama had great responses for everything; but the fundamental problem was that he was largely defending his record of the last four years, and his message was that everything was great. This is not going to work, because everyone looks around and sees things are not great. They can see it on the gas pumps. Romney nailed it, drawing out this perception, by saying Obama was a great speaker, but his record shows he does not get things done.

As a result, even Obama's best arguments are likely not to stick to the target. Worse, the contrast between what he said and the perceived reality gives him an aura of mendacity, which hurts him on the essential likability factor.

This is made worse, I think, by his flashes of anger during the debate: most notably, his attempt to shut down all criticism on the Libya debacle by declaring it “offensive” to suggest he or anyone in the administration lied about it. Anger is not generally attractive; and he was, to some extent, expressing anger at voters themselves—the many among them who have indeed been suspecting the administration lied for two weeks about the nature of the Benghazi attacks.

And I think Obama's likability suffers again from the open partisanship of the moderator. Her intervention to endorse Obama's claims on Libya was, to me, absolutely jaw-dropping.

We know from many polls and surveys that most Americans no longer trust the media. The fact that Obama and the moderator were acting in consort—this is an observable fact, not some kind of conspiracy theory—actually tarnishes Obama as the candidate of the media. It will anger many who do not like to feel manipulated.

And the intervention itself probably did no good. Anyone who has been keeping abreast of the news knows full well that the Obama administration was saying for two weeks that the Benghazi attack was spontaneous and not terrorism.

The attempt to wiggle out by bombast, tricks with words, and collusion with the media, instead cements the impression that Obama's claims and promises, on anything, are not to be trusted.

Obama's energetic defense of his record will probably energize his base, and prevent him from being embarrassed on election day. But his base, in poll after poll, is under 50%; it alone will not get him reelected. He did not reach out to undecideds, and his debate strategy did not seem to be designed to reach out to undecideds. A defense of his record is not going to accomplish that; he has to give them a positive reason to vote for him, a vision for the future.

Obama did not do that in this debate, and he has not done that in this campaign. It is, of course, a difficult thing for an incumbent to do—the inevitable question becomes, “if this is your plan, why didn't you do it over the last four years?” Still, others have pulled it off; and it seems to be the approach best tailored to fit this candidate's oratorical skills. Why has he not done this?

I think it is further evidence that he does not really want to be president. He does not like to even think of the task of governing for four more years. His game now is to protect his legacy, and retire with some dignity.

That was his tone throughout this debate.

Here's Someone Who Sounds Like He Knows What He Is Talking About

... saying two surprising things about the polls:

1. Obama has been trailing all along;

2. The Vice Presidential Debate really shifted the polls to Romney.

In saying he sounds as though he knows what he is talking about, I'm really saying I buy his arguments. Point 2 especially rings true to me: never underestimate the likability factor. As I said, Biden seemed to swing a wrecking ball on the likability of his entire ticket.

Prediction for Second Debate

Lifelike image courtesy DonkeyHotey. CC license.

Since I did so well on my prediction for the First US Presidential Debate, I am emboldened to make a prediction for Debate #2.

I think Romney will win again.

It should not be as one-sided as the first debate—that win was historic. The odds are against that; though I think even this is possible.

President Obama will certainly try to do better this time; his pride is on the line. But if I am right that he fundamentally, in his heart of hearts, is sick of the job and does not want to be re-elected, he can be more or less counted on to self-sabotage in some way. Just as he seems to be self-sabotaging on the growing Libya scandal by trying to scapegoat both the Clintonian State Department and the intelligence community—two groups you really want to have on your side.

And I note with arched eyebrow that the debate prep this time is once again at a golf resort. Not the venue you want if you want Obama's full attention; sounds like another carrot for a reluctant horse.

Romney, on the other hand, won the first debate largely because he was so very well briefed. He is not going to become un-briefed. And as hard as Obama might be running now to catch up, Romney is likely to be running just as fast; he's not going to stop and wait for Obama.

I expect in any case that unless Obama scores a TKO, or Romney commits a gaffe, the news stories will be, at best, “Obama held his own.” Perhaps the news media would like the story “Obama closes the gap” better for partisan reasons, but it's really not as good a story yet as “wheels come off the Obama bus.” Problem is, there is hardly and gap to be closed yet. First they have to establish the gap. Obama has to go down further before his comeback becomes a good story.

Democratic Meltdown?

I think the Libya security imbroglio has that potential: it could be an open feud between Obama, blaming State, and the Clintons fighting back by blaming Obama. Or an open feud between Obama and the intelligence community. It looks as though that is the way it is headed.

If it looks as though Obama is going down anyway, there'll be no reason to take the fall for him, and every reason to try to dump it all on him.

All hell could break loose, in campaign terms.

Ohio Voter Rolls

Reports are that a cleanup of the voter rolls in Ohio has uncovered and removed 490,000 registered voters who are in fact dead or do not exist. These voters were overwhelmingly Democrats.

Moral: being a Democrat is dangerous to your health.

Big Bird

I think Obama's campaign is acting completely deranged in running their ad accusing Romney of blaming the US's economic troubles on Big Bird. This is the old kind of propagandizing that assumes popular ignorance. It surely cannot work in the Internet age, where the truth is so accessible. And it surely cannot work on something a record-high audience watched on their own TVs. This is just destroying their credibility on anything else they say. And it is like putting a big pink neon sign on the campaign bus saying "I'm a lightweight. My concerns are frivolous."

The 47%

A lot of left-wing commentators are complaining about Obama not bringing up Romney's comment about the 47% of Americans who do not pay taxes, are dependent on government, and will never support him. So why didn't he? Seems like an obvious talking point.

Iowahawk suggests it is because the Obama campaign has figured out that it does not work in his favour, and I suspect that may be true. Romney spoke of a 47 percent who did not pay taxes and were dependent on government. But polls show that 80% of the population of the US hold the opinion that they do indeed pay income tax. They will not see themselves in that 47%; and may well resent that 47%.

Even some who do not pay income taxes, and believe that they do not, will still not see themselves as in that 47%. The idea of getting ahead is the American Dream. A lot of people will see their dependent state--rightly--as temporary, and will still not consider themselves in the dependent 47%.

I really don't see why the line can't be a winner for Romney. He may have sacrificed the support of 12% of the electorate, a 12% he is probably quite right in thinking he will never get anyway, for the sake of boosting his support among the other 88%.