New York Times Endorses President Obama’s Re-election
President Barack Obama picked up the endorsement of The New York Times on Saturday, a decision the paper’s editorial board said was due to administration policies that have placed the economy on the path to recovery, the passage of landmark health care reform, the advocating of women’s rights and a foreign policy agenda that has kept unstable regions from combustion — all accomplished, the board argues, in the face of an “ideological assault” from the Republican Party.
Chicago Tribune Endorses President Again
CHICAGO — For only the second time in its 165-year history, the Chicago Tribune has endorsed a Democratic candidate for president.
Once again, President Barack Obama will enjoy his hometown Tribune’s seal of approval, the newspaper announced Friday. The paper lauded the president for his careful projection of military power abroad and pragmatism as the country’s economic “dominoes toppled.
This isn’t the politically correct thing to say, but when we drove the mother out of the home into the workplace and replaced her with the television set, that was not a good thing.
During the same campaign swing, Bartlett said he believed “the Information Age is just a high-tech bubble,” noting “You can’t eat those electrons. They won’t keep the rain off your head. They won’t take you anywhere.”
Bartlett also recently apologized for comparing student loans to the Holocaust.
He is facing an uphill battle for re-election in a new district that is more favorable to Democrat
The Telegraph (UK)
A Romney victory could spook the US markets
Were Romney to win, paradoxically, the US stock market could tumble. That’s because the former Massachusetts governor would be most unlikely to extend the tenure of Democrat-appointee Ben Bernanke as chairman of the Federal Reserve when his current second term expires in January 2014. That political reality would then cast doubt on Bernanke’s recently-issued pledge that the Fed won’t raise interest rates until well into 2015.
Writing a column like this with more than ten days to go is inherently risky. But based on the polling data I’ve been examining, the Electoral College math I’ve been doing and the political instincts I’ve always relied upon, I have a theory of how this year’s extremely close fight for the presidency between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney might unfold when the votes are tallied into the wee hours on election night.
The truth is that I never envisaged that the election would be this close. The president’s disastrous performance in the first televised debate, and Governor’s Romney’s strong showing that night, put paid to my ideas about how things would play out. On that night, Governor Romney appeared to be presidential and a centrist. He undoubtedly appealed to those Americans who were only then tuning in to the campaign.
I had written and said in a number of different fora that I believed Florida would be pivotal to the outcome this year. Specifically, my view was that, if the president were to win Florida, he would prevail in an Electoral College landslide. On the other hand, if Governor Romney were to pull off a victory there, then I believed that President Obama’s path to the 270 Electoral College votes he would need to be re-elected would become less straightforward, yet nearly as certain.
Needless to say, the first debate and the consequential movement in the polls in key battleground states forced me to readjust my calculus. Some commentators, particularly those who favour Governor Romney’s election, have incorrectly relied on national polls in support of their view that both the first debate and the fuller attention being paid to the candidates and the issues by the electorate wholly changed the dynamics of the race.
The first debate and the broader electorate’s heightened focus unquestionably made things tighter. National polls, however, are inherently misleading in US presidential elections and the wild divergences in these polls reflect this reality. Making predictions as to a result based on national polls verges on the nonsensical.
So where does this lead me? And why do I think that Republican-leaning commentators, many of whom now believe that Mitt Romney is likely to be the next president, are wrong?
My fundamental starting point is that the following states – in roughly counter-clockwise order from the northeast and followed by their number of Electoral College votes – can still be regarded as “in play”: New Hampshire (4), Pennsylvania (20), Ohio (16), Michigan (16), Wisconsin (10), Iowa (6), Colorado (9), Nevada (6), Florida (29), North Carolina (15) and Virginia (13). The dye is fairly well cast in the other 39 states, and barring something completely unforeseen, will leave President Obama with a 10 vote lead, 201-191, over Governor Romney.
The aforementioned mix of data, math and instinct tells me the following.
Obama will win Pennsylvania and Romney will win North Carolina. I suspect somewhat less strongly that Obama will take Michigan and Wisconsin. I have a similarly formed suspicion that Romney will take Virginia and New Hampshire. That would leave things at 247 votes for the incumbent and 223 votes for the challenger.
And here is where hunches come in. My hunch is that Nevada and Iowa will break for Obama. On the other side, my hunch is that Colorado and, yes, Florida will break for Romney. My Obama hunches are shaped by my sense of Nevada’s demographics and by Iowa’s still strong populist streak. My Romney hunches are a product, especially in Florida, of polling data and numbers I find very surprising, but which are difficult to refute, notwithstanding my contrary instincts. Governor Romney and his campaign deserve a lot of credit if this is borne out on November 6th.
They recognized, from the earliest days of the campaign, that they would need to win Florida to win the presidency. To this end, and despite tacking hard-right on just about everything else in the Republican primary, Governor Romney steadfastly defended Social Security. The comments of his primary opponent, Texas Governor Rick Perry, likening the government programme on which so many Florida-based retirees depend to a “Ponzi scheme,” were a gift in this regard. Moreover, the repeated statements of fidelity to Israel and oft-touted friendship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were meant to be heard by Florida’s large Jewish community. They lean Democratic, but have never trusted the president on Israel.
If Romney does indeed win Florida – it is far from certain that he will – it will be by a very narrow margin. And it will be due in no small part to this shrewd posturing on issues that matter to Floridians whose votes were identified at an early stage as being “in play.”
A Romney victory in Florida, coupled with my other hunches being on the money, would put him in the lead by two votes, 261-259. In my analysis, Ohio would then remain to determine who will be the next president.
While polls show the two candidates in a virtual dead heat, I just can’t see Governor Romney winning Ohio for two reasons. First is the extraordinary ground game and get out the vote operation that the Obama re-election team have put together there. Some elements never really went away after 2008, and media reports are that absolutely everything possible has been done to ensure that their voters, particularly African-Americans, exercise their right to vote. Early voting, which is now in full swing, will be crucial.
Second is Governor Romney’s past as a venture capitalist with Bain Capital. Hard-hitting and evidently relentless ads in Ohio highlight his complicity in the demise of companies and the concomitant loss of livelihoods of thousands of working men and women. This makes garnering the votes of blue collar workers and ethnic Catholics, whose support Romney will need to win the state, a far more difficult task.
Accordingly, as of now, my prediction is that President Obama will win 275 Electoral College votes and secure a second term. I may well be wrong. I believe, however, that my error could just as likely lie in underestimating the scale of the president’s triumph as in picking the wrong winner. We shall soon see.
– – – –
Faced with questions that came at him from the left – on same-sex marriage, climate change and gun control – Obama hewed closely to his well-established positions but directed his answers to the network’s under-30 audience. There was no “boxers or briefs” or “I didn’t inhale” moments like the ones in then-Gov. Bill Clinton’s famous 1992 interview with MTV.
(PHOTOS: Politicians’ memorable MTV moments)
“I have been very clear about my belief that same sex couples have to be treated, before the eyes of the law, the same way as heterosexual couples,” Obama told host Sway Calloway, who interviewed the president live from the Blue Room and wore a knit cap with his suit. MTV has asked Mitt Romney to do a similar interview before Election Day, but the Romney campaign has not yet committed to one.
Explaining his evolution to come to support same-sex marriage, Obama said he “was supportive of civil unions” but that same-sex couples he knows “taught me that if you’re using different words, if you’re somehow singling them out, they don’t feel true equality.”
But that doesn’t mean that Obama will push for a federal definition of marriage. “Historically, marriages have been defined at the state level,” he said. “For us to try to legislate federally is probably the wrong way to go.”
He did, though, offer viewers a reminder that he that his administration has stopped defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court, though he got the name of that late-1990s law wrong in two mentions during the interview. “I have stood up and said I’m opposed to the so-called Defense Against Marriage Act,” he said.
“We haven’t seen as much directly political music. I think the most vibrant musical art form now over the last 10 to 15 years has been hip-hop,” he said.
“There have been some folks that have kind of dabbled in political statements. But a lot of it has been more cultural than political,” he continued, before mentioning high-profile Obama supporter Bruce Springsteen. “You got folks like Springsteen who are still putting out very strong political statements. But I would like to see a more explicit discussion of the issues that are out there right now. Because music is such a powerful mechanism.”
(PHOTOS: 10 lyrical shout-outs to Obama)
In an interview with a Denver TV reporter Friday, President Obama twice refused to answer questions as to whether the Americans under siege in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012, were denied requests for help, saying he’s waiting for the results of investigations before making any conclusions about what went wrong.
After being asked about possible denials of requests for aid, and whether it’s fair to tell Americans that what happened is under investigation and won’t be released until after the election, the president said, “the election has nothing to do with four brave Americans getting killed and us wanting to find out exactly what happened. These are folks who served under me who I had sent to some very dangerous places. Nobody wants to find out more what happened than I do.”
President Obama told KUSA-TV’s Kyle Clarke large that “we want to make sure we get it right, particularly because I have made a commitment to the families impacted as well as to the American people, we’re going to bring those folks to justice. So, we’re going to gather all the facts, find out exactly what happened, and make sure that it doesn’t happen again but we’re also going to make sure that we bring to justice those who carried out these attacks.”
Clark pressed again.
“Were they denied requests for help during the attack?” he asked.
“Well, we are finding out exactly what happened,” the president again said. “I can tell you, as I’ve said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe. These were our folks and we’re going to find out exactly what happened, but what we’re also going to do it make sure that we are identifying those who carried out these terrible attacks.”
In response, CIA spokesperson Jennifer Youngblood said, “We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi. Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night-and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades.”
The Obama campaign targeted young women yesterday with an insulting and degrading ad equating voting for Obama with losing one’s virginity. Conservative women are fed up with being viewed as little more than a collection of lady parts and are fighting back.
Concerned Women for America is out with a new campaign that smacks down OFA’s “Your First Time” ad and its insinuation that American women care only about access to free birth control and abortion on demand. With the “Lady Smarts,” campaign, CWA shines the spotlight on what really matters to women: jobs and the economy.
Washington, D.C. — In response to the Obama campaign’s “Your First Time” ad featuring Lena Dunham, Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee CEO and President Penny Nance announced the launch of the “Lady Smarts” campaign. “Lady Smarts” seeks to dispel the liberal notion that women are monolithic voters and are only concerned about free contraception and abortion. “Lady Smarts” refutes liberal efforts to distract from the real concerns of voters by alleging a phony “war on women” and highlights the fact that women’s issues are everyone’s issues. Our major concerns this election are jobs and the economy.
“I’m saddened to see the liberal women of this country allow themselves to be painted into a corner and portrayed as single-minded and only concerned about getting free stuff,” Nance said. “I’ve traveled across this country and women of all backgrounds are telling me that this election is not just about their ovaries, they’re thinking about the overall picture of the economy.”