100 Day Sprint: It’s tied and Romney has Big Mo
Voting in the 2012 presidential election officially ends three weeks from today. For Team Obama — for the first time in the campaign — I’m guessing there’s a profound hunger for more time, more days, more hours in the day.
Polls generally give Mitt Romney a narrow-verging-on-statistically-significant lead in the overall horse race, with the latest Gallup poll showing the Republican challenger four points ahead and capturing 50% support from voters. That’s a huge milestone.
Barack Obama, meanwhile, continues to lead by thin margins in battleground states that would give him 294 electoral college votes — 24 more than he needs to win a second term. But his “big blue wall”has shrunk dramatically.
If Obama doesn’t change the energy level in the coming week, his strategic advantages in the race may come to look more like a big blue speed bump.
So what does that mean for the second debate?
I think it’s actually a bit more fifty-fifty challenge tonight than most pundits are suggesting. Obama needs to be great. Truly on his game, channeling Bill Clinton, Franklin Roosevelt and Martin Luther King Jr. All at the same time.
But I also think Romney has a big task tonight.
He simply can’t go back to being Boring Romney. He also can’t allow Obama to deligitimize the tax-cutting and job creation plan, cornerstones of his campaign, which have taken significant fire over the last week.
That said, however, the burden is obviously on the president to change the dynamic of the race. For months, the contest seemed to have stabilized with Romney just under water — close, within shouting distance, but not a real threat.
That changed with Obama decided to flop in a nationally televised debate with 70,000,000 people watching.
Obama’s danger is the campaign will find a new kind of equilibrium down the stretch, this time with his own political future sinking fast.
He once described himself as a change agent. For his own sake, he better be right.
Re Romney’s Mass tenure, John Kerry on “Morning Joe” today said, in addition to the many fails mentioned by Walker, that the Romney is not even attempting to field a campaign effort in good old Massachusetts, he is so thoroughly disliked there. I’ve also seen several mentions that the Elizabeth Warren campaign is given a huge advantage, although her race is now close, by all the Dems and independents who will likely vote straight “D” just to vote against Romney. More More Romney BS that Obama needs to highlight next time.
Walker, how about this, then:
President Obama, Bill Clinton was exposed as a philandering liar. Can you tell us how you are different?
Gee, Larry, I guess you’re right: we’re both Liberals. Oh, except for the philandering liar part.
What’s your point, though? If I ran for President (perish the thought!) my platform wouldn’t be all that different from Clinton’s.
Meanwhile, Romney’s doesn’t seem to know truth from falsehood:
My point, Walker, is that it is pointless to associate a current candidate with an administration he wasn’t part of or a predecessor he hasn’t expressly modeled hiomself after. It’s old news and serves no legitimate purpose. We both know what purpose is really being served.
Well my point Larry, is that Romney’s policies appear to be essentially identical to Bush’s. I’m not so much trying to “associate [him] with an administration he wasn’t part of,” as I am asking, if his policies are essentially identical, why should we expect different results this time.
Think about it Larry. Given how very similar Romney’s proposals are to Bush’s, isn’t it interesting that the Republicans didn’t have Bush appear at their convention? I mean, all the “conservative” points are still there, big as life, and yet the man who embodied those points for eight years wasn’t welcome at the convention? What does that tell you?
You say Romney’s platform is identical to Bush’s. That leaves plenty of room for doubt. You (and other liberals) spend an inordinate amount of time demonizing Bush and then criticize Romney for not inviting him to the convention. You really do want to have it both ways, don’t you? On the other hand, what does it tell you about Obama that his primary endorsement came from the only President to be impeached in over 100 years? Clinton is untrustworthy and was caught in lies multiple times but we’re to believe him about Obama? How do you think that looks?
That Clinton was impeached says more about the over-the-top, win-at-all-cost Republicans (then and now) than it does about Clinton. The Whitewater controversy was an absolute witch hunt; Democrats ought to have responded in kind, re: Harken, Halliburton, etc. We could have had a second impeachment, and wouldn’t that have been good for the country.
Am I to suppose that the Democrats went easy on Bush because it would have been bad for the country to do otherwise? I don’t think so. They would have crucified him if they had anything they thought would stick. Clinton, on the other hand, put himself in an indefensible position by lying. If there’s one thing the American people can’t abide, it’s a politician who insults their intelligence. Memo to Obama: read up on Clinton (and Nixon, too, for that matter) before this Libya thing gets away from you.
“If there’s one thing the American people can’t abide, it’s a politician who insults their intelligence.”
Well apparently about half of the American people can abide it. Or maybe their intelligence is pretty thick skinned! If GWB and Romney haven’t insulted it, it must be immune to insult.
Bush was twice elected President; must not have been too bad. I was referring more to Nixon and Clinton, both of whom richly deserved what they got. It is interesting to note that both were eventually forgiven by the American people. We’ll see what the verdict is on Obama and Romney.
Actually, Larry, GWB was only elected once.