Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?

[jb]

It would seem that this evening's debate regarding Foreign Policy will be a target rich environment for Mitt Romney, let's see if he can actually get some shots within the 10 ring.  I'm guessing the BS peddled by Obama about Libya will be a hot topic.

It should be interesting.

[BC]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/55019844-82/romney-obama-state-president.html.csp

In considering which candidate to endorse, The Salt Lake Tribune editorial board had hoped that Romney would exhibit the same talents for organization, pragmatic problem solving and inspired leadership that he displayed here more than a decade ago. Instead, we have watched him morph into a friend of the far right, then tack toward the center with breathtaking aplomb. Through a pair of presidential debates, Romney’s domestic agenda remains bereft of detail and worthy of mistrust.

Therefore, our endorsement must go to the incumbent, a competent leader who, against tough odds, has guided the country through catastrophe and set a course that, while rocky, is pointing toward a brighter day. The president has earned a second term. Romney, in whatever guise, does not deserve a first.

[Gator]

JB,
 
I do hope that Romney prevails tonight as Obama has some foreign policy weakpoints.  He has made a couple of speaking errors (London Olympics and Palestinians).
 
Do you recall in 2008 that the biggest concern about Obama was his lack of foreign experience?   That was why he chose Biden as his VP. 
 
Yes, Romney will again try to make some points about Obama's dishonesty regarding the Benghazi attack.   Maybe he will succeed if the moderator does not intervene again on Obama's behalf.  Also, Romney should emphasize that our best foreign policy is to have a strong economy. i. e., returning the debate to the economy.
 
The election is about the economy.   IIRC, only 3% of Americans feel the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are the Number One Issue.  Obama wins if he can garner 80% of the minorities and 40% of the whites.  In 2008 he had more than that.  Many of the 2008 Obama voters were soft, not turned on by McCain.   In 2012 many of those soft voters are disillusioned about the "hope and change" promise. 
 
Then there is Ohio.  A number of local economies in Ohio were kept afloat by ignoring the rights of the creditors and essentially giving Chrysler and GM to the unions in the form of preserving their pay scale and pension benefits, something that will forever hinder GM's return to reasonable profitability.   That gift which you and I paid for may win the election for Obama. 

[ML]

On Friday, I attended a lecture given by a respected University Political Geographer.  He has published extensively about all past presidential elections from viewpoint of Electoral College, and how the various regions of the USA have shifted over time.  Quite interesting.

As a closing note, he gave us each a sheet showing the states and their electoral votes.  He had combined projected results from several polls that he respected with regard to who was going to get the Electoral votes in each state.

After recording the states that were solid and leaning Democrat, and solid and leaning Republican, there were 95 electoral college votes left in 7 swing (could not be put in solid or leaning status) states.
The swing states were Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire.

Romney MUST carry one of either Florida (29 votes) or Ohio (18 votes).  If not, NO way he can win.

And, if he loses Florida, then he must win every other state listed.

If he wins Florida and loses Ohio, then there are 11 different combinations of the 7 remaining states that can provide him a win.

On another note:  Despite the current criticisms of the Electoral College system, I am in favor of it for the reasons put forth by the Founding Fathers, and for some other current reasons.

[jone]

Do you all remember in the 2008 election where President Obama said that one of his first orders of business, as President, was going to be to sit down with the leaders of Iran, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela?  His personality was going to win over those countries.

Personally, I believe that there are two gorillas in the room whenever the President speaks.  They are jobs and deficit.  He can say whatever he wants, but those two gorillas are never going to go away.  They dominate discussion and because they are there, a foreign policy win tonight for the President will not move the needle when it comes to voting. 

In Ohio, where both candidates are around 47-48%, the independents always break for the challenger, especially in a bad economy.  The true test of this election will be whether the run up voting by the Dems in that state is sufficient to overcome this undecided challenger windfall.  It all comes down to Ohio.  Unless Ryan pulls Wisconsin from the blue to the Red as a favorite son. 

[jb]

The election is about the economy.   IIRC, only 3% of Americans feel the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are the Number One Issue.  Obama wins if he can garner 80% of the minorities and 40% of the whites.  In 2008 he had more than that.  Many of the 2008 Obama voters were soft, not turned on by McCain.   In 2012 many of those soft voters are disillusioned about the "hope and change" promise. 

Gator; I more than agree.  However I fear that too few people are asking the right question, i.e., "... am I better off today than 4 years ago?"  Personally speaking, my finances have not suffered too much although I'm still a little pissed off because my house is now worth 10% less than it was 4 years ago, and although my account balances have increased, my buying power has declined.   In other words, my dollars are worth a lot less today thanks to QE I, II, & III.

My greatest fear is that the 2012 election will again be all about "Bread and Circus", Obama won in '08 with the promise of free stuff and thus won the adulation of the minorities.  Unless Romney scores a knockout punch tonight with some real magic we may be in for a really tough 4 more years. 

BTW... The polls I watch and trust are showing a shift in both Ohio and Florida, I do not think Obama has a lock on 2012 yet.

[BC]

 
BTW... The polls I watch and trust are showing a shift in both Ohio and Florida, I do not think Obama has a lock on 2012 yet.

Isn't that like 'picking your poison?'

[jb]

BC,

Obama has undergone a slide of historic proportions since October 1st, what looked like a coin toss 3 weeks ago may change to a much different proposition by Nov 6th.  I think the debate tonight with the Libyan "truth" problems may swing a lot of weight towards Romney.  Most Americans don't like to be lied to.

Romney seems to be gaining in the former question mark states,  some states that were leaning Obama have become lean Romney. Some polls show Obama below 270 electoral votes as of this minute;  RCP has peeled 100 electoral votes away from Obama this month.  The trend is clear, and if Obama can't change it, he'll be working on his Presidential Library come January 31st.

[jb]

BC,

As an aside, right now I'm thinking this election is another Reagan/Carter replay.

If I were a Las Vegas odds maker, I'd double down on Romney, it would be safe money.

[Gator]

The trend is clear, and if Obama can't change it, he'll be working on his Presidential Library come January 31st.

  Located in Hawaii no less.
 
Your house lost only 10% of its value.  Obviously you don't reside in Florida.   
 
Texas has been mostly immune to the economic downturn, something about being an energy state.   And that reminds me of another strong point Romney can make about foreign policy - his plan for energy independence (in North America). 

Energy independence will give America the lowest price for energy, thus enabling growth in manufacturing.  From a foreign policy aspect, we would have no need to become entangled with peoples who chant "Death to America."  BC and his fellow Europeans can deal with the Middle East (and Russia) regarding energy.

And as an oilman, perhaps you can enlighten me about Obama's energy policies and their effectiveness.

[Gator]

BC,
 
Good to see you again.  What does Obama propose now that is different from the past four years?   Do you believe the economy will get much better?
 
Shouldn't we try a moderate leader who will reach across the aisle with some bold new plans?
 
 

[Gator]

.... my buying power has declined.   In other words, my dollars are worth a lot less today thanks to QE I, II, & III.

Yes, the result of monetizing our debt. 
 
This will remain a severe problem for Romney when elected.  At least he and Ryan will invite the question of how to deal with our mounting debt. 
 

[jb]

And as an oilman, perhaps you can enlighten me about Obama's energy policies and their effectiveness.

OMG~! Surely you jest. 

Most of the western half of the USA's mineral interest is owned by the federal gov., from the north/south Colorado border, up and down, and then west to the Pacific.  It's all tied up in either U.S. Forest Service Lands, or, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, or, BIA, (Bureau of Indian Affairs).   Vast acreage is held in all of the west, in CO, WY, MT. UT. ID, NM, & NV.

Obama has forbidden exploration for natural resources on Federal Lands, although there is a "permit" process to explore these lands, Obama decreed that zero permits would be granted. 

I find it strange that Obama touts that oil and gas production has increased under his administration, he omits the fact that it was only on private land that it occurred.  Federal oil and gas production has declined,,, wasteful IMHO.

[Daveman]

"Every time history repeats itself, the price of the lesson goes up."

[GQBlues]

... Personally, I believe that there are two gorillas in the room whenever the President speaks.  They are jobs and deficit.  He can say whatever he wants, but those two gorillas are never going to go away.  They dominate discussion and because they are there, a foreign policy win tonight for the President will not move the needle when it comes to voting....

It's good to see the resurgence of Jane/Joe Public taking a more pro-active interest in this year's election. I agree with what you stated above.

Unfortunately, the reality of our electorate today put little significance to these matters. The folks that will flood the voting stations between now and Nov. 6th are those whose only concern in determining the best man for the job is the man most likely to make sure their food stamps and welfare checks keep on comin'.

All the polls and all the odds maker can dance around this simple reality, but the fact is you can round-up 2,000 of these deadweights and ask them who'll they'll vote for president this year and I'll give you 1:1,000 odd they'll say Obama.

Now I'm not saying everyone who votes for Obama are social leeches. What I am saying is, those who are happen to be so huge in number and by adding them to the 2008 Doped and Banged holdovers and the Union is more than enough to insure this clown's re-election.

Romney is absolutely right. We are on a one way road to Greece...

[jone]

The poll that I watch is called Suffolk.  Not because it favors either candidate, but because it has a history of being completely right.  Hasn't ever missed.  It is run by Suffolk College, I believe in Mass.

Two weeks ago Suffolk pulled it's polling out of Florida, Virginia and North Carolina.  The reason?  Because the pollster said that with ancillary voting (run up voting and absentee voting) in these three states, the Suffolk poll was already prepared to call these states for Romney.  And that was even before there was polling in VA to show Romney in the lead.  Four days later Florida came out with a St. Petersburg poll that showed a seven point margin in favor of Romney and Obama's team started pulling out of North Carolina.

If you want the straight scoop, follow Suffolk.  BTW it has Ohio as a dead heat right now. 47 to 47.  All Romney had to do tonight was not screw up - which he didn't - and the trend should continue through election day.  Unless we go to war or something.

-j

[BC]

BC,
 
Good to see you again.  What does Obama propose now that is different from the past four years?   Do you believe the economy will get much better?
 
Shouldn't we try a moderate leader who will reach across the aisle with some bold new plans?

Gator,

bold, new plans tend to create upset.. my goodness look what ROBamacare did..

I am in favor of a period of stability, but with re-election a push to embolden current policy.  True achievements will only be possible when Congress either drops party lines or a President pushes them.  With the weight of re-election off his back Obama will be able to swing his brass and get off the partisan tightrope.

Cement does not solidify as long as the mixer is running.

If Romney is elected, the mix will be volatile along with the weight of achieving re-election.. after all he did mention his policies, even economic would take longer than just a first term..  The challenges with Congress will not change just because he is elected..  In fact I fear worse.

Almost more interesting than the Pres Election is what changes are forthcoming in Congress.

[BC]

I find it strange that Obama touts that oil and gas production has increased under his administration, he omits the fact that it was only on private land that it occurred.  Federal oil and gas production has declined,,, wasteful IMHO.

In the second debate, Obama mentioned that many of the licenses were revoked due to non-use.  I can imagine that there are differences between private and federal land, but what are they and why does industry obviously prefer private land?

[Gator]

OMG~! Surely you jest. 

Of course.  And it is far more than restricting exploration and production on federal land.
 
Obama was against the pipeline for Canadian tar sand oil.  His EPA is challenging fracking.  He claims environmental reasons.  I believe the real reason is to increase the price of oil to make expensive green energy more competitive. 
 
And how about T Boone Pickens?  His plan to replace diesel fuel in trucks with domestic natural gas would curtail two million bbls/day of imported oil.  The government is not behind this plan.
 
There is much that Obama could do to reduce the cost of energy and to reduce oil imports.  Instead Obama's policies are doing the opposite.   This is inexcusable in a down economy and a volatile Middle East.
 
 

[Gator]

Gator,

bold, new plans tend to create upset.. my goodness look what ROBamacare did..

I am in favor of a period of stability, but with re-election a push to embolden current policy.  True achievements will only be possible when Congress either drops party lines or a President pushes them.  With the weight of re-election off his back Obama will be able to swing his brass and get off the partisan tightrope.

Cement does not solidify as long as the mixer is running.

Is that why Obama did not follow through with his 2008 promise for "Hope and Change?"   

If Romney is elected, the mix will be volatile along with the weight of
achieving re-election.. after all he did mention his policies, even economic
would take longer than just a first term..  The challenges with Congress
will not change just because he is elected..  In fact I fear worse.

No fear BC.  Romney is not arrogant as is Obama.  However, you are correct about the challenge.  The challenges to grow jobs and to reduce the fiscal deficit are huge.   That is why Obama needs to be sent packing to Hawaii.  We have seen his plan for four years.  He was given a mandate and he failed.

[Gator]

I am a little upset with Romney. 
 
Regarding policy I think it wrong to not cut our military budget, especially given our deficit. 
 
Regarding the third debate last evening, Romney could have given Obama the coups de grace.  Instead he was too soft. 
 
Obama constantly interrupted Romney and Romney never told him to wait his turn. 
 
When Obama made those condescending remarks about "ships that go under the water and ships that planes land on," Romney should have stopped him and commented about how Romney is trying to take the high road yet Obama is constantly attacking him, now stooping to the low point of making condescending remarks.  "Stop being so arrogant and please show the class and dignity expected from the holder of the highest office in our nation."
 
Also, Romney let Obama slip away regarding Libya.
 
Finally, Romney does agree with much of Obama's foreign policy.  What if Romney had said, "Yes, I do agree with many of your foreign policies.   Obviously you have surrounded yourself with qualified advisers in foreign policy.  Mr. President, why did you not surround yourself with the same level of economic advisers?"
 
Yes, I understand that Romney wanted to appeal to women voters and not come across too assertive.  However, he came across as a bit of a woos.
 
 

[BC]

Yes, I understand that Romney wanted to appeal to women voters and not come across too assertive.  However, he came across as a bit of a woos.

Gator,

In many ways Romney was not able to show a unique path.  For much of the debate he simply repeated what Obama stated.

That may be very confusing for many voters as he had very little 'fresh' to say, more an Obama parrot than someone with fresh, workable ideas - almost mimicking Obama's lackluster performance in the first debate, even looking down and taking notes...

Quite lame and most importantly little grasp of the topic at hand.

I'll be heading to the booth tomorrow before the long flight home - for better or worse.

[Faux Pas]

I am a little upset with Romney. 
 
When Obama made those condescending remarks about "ships that go under the water and ships that planes land on," Romney should have stopped him and commented about how Romney is trying to take the high road yet Obama is constantly attacking him, now stooping to the low point of making condescending remarks.  "Stop being so arrogant and please show the class and dignity expected from the holder of the highest office in our nation."
 
Yes, I understand that Romney wanted to appeal to women voters and not come across too assertive.  However, he came across as a bit of a woos.

Gator,

In many ways Romney was not able to show a unique path.  For much of the debate he simply repeated what Obama stated.

That may be very confusing for many voters as he had very little 'fresh' to say, more an Obama parrot than someone with fresh, workable ideas - almost mimicking Obama's lackluster performance in the first debate, even looking down and taking notes...

Quite lame and most importantly little grasp of the topic at hand.

I'll be heading to the booth tomorrow before the long flight home - for better or worse.

I saw at least three times Romney could have put a pure bitch slap on Obama with Obama's own remarks and false statements. He didn't and I was getting frustrated as to why not. As a result, as soon as the debate was over I declared it a draw. I spent an hour or two after the debate wondering why Romney would let him off those points so easily. There was a TV pundit that made a statement this evening and a light finally came on.

History has shown in previous elections that the final debate weeks before an election rarely sway any voters. With the gains Romney made in the previous two debates this talking head surmised Romney was just being careful to not offend and not lose. Thus never went into attack mode regardless of the opportunity. The idea being he wasn't going to gain any votes and the strategy was to not lose any. Time will tell if the strategy worked I suppose 

[Gator]

I saw at least three times Romney could have put a pure bitch slap on Obama with Obama's own remarks and false statements. He didn't and I was getting frustrated as to why not.

You and I are confirmed Romney voters.  We understand fully the negative effect of Obama's policies for America's economic future.  Also, we know that Obama is a big fat liar; thus it is repulsive to watch Obama call Romney a liar, when Romney is the more decent and classy man. 
 
Thus, we want to see Romney kick Obama's ass.  However,

History has shown in previous elections that the final debate weeks before an election rarely sway any voters. With the gains Romney made in the previous two debates this talking head surmised Romney was just being careful to not offend and not lose. Thus never went into attack mode regardless of the opportunity. The idea being he wasn't going to gain any votes and the strategy was to not lose any. Time will tell if the strategy worked I suppose 

Exactly.  With regard to foreign policy, Romney mostly held his own against a sitting President.  That is remarkable considering Romney is a business leader and Obama has been eating and sleeping foreign policy for four years. After calming down, I feel that the debate showed Romney more as a noble supreme  leader and Obama as a bullying, arrogant community organizer.
 
So Romney's posture was for the purpose of winning the undecided.  What perplexes me is how any person can still be undecided at this stage.   For sure they are taking the election very seriously.  However, all they have to do is examine Obama's economic failures for the past four years, determine if Obama has any new plans, and ask "Will the economy get better?"
 
Frankly, I doubt that Romney will return us to a high growth economy.  Debt, demographics and globalization will restrain America's economy.  However, I am confident Romney can lead us in a better direction.  And that is all we should expect for the next four years considering we are in debt up to our chest.  What would Obama do? 

[ML]

Another take on  the 3rd debate.

Yes, to objective observer, it would seem that Obama won by a small margin.

However, some 'experts' are saying that actually Romney won by a small margin.   Reason . . . even though Obama got the better of it from his  aggressive actions . . . Romney was successful in turning back the focus to ECONOMICS several  times.  The experts say (and our European folks here will readily agree) . . . the common folk here care zilch about foreign policy.  They are going to vote on perceived ECONOMICS.  So any reminder of the economic situation is a win for Romney.