Archive for the ‘2012 Campaign’ Category

Veep Debate: morning after thoughts …

October 12, 2012

For what they’re worth …

1. Watching the debate I thought Biden won. Yes, he was a condescending bully … but he dominated. He didn’t raise any new points and told some rehashed whoppers, but he showed passion and a will-to-fight.  Most important, his interruptions and distracting behavior when Ryan was talking kept Ryan from completing any of his logic.  I thought Ryan should have been firmer – with Biden & the moderator – to stop the interruptions.

2. Given the above, I was surprised when the post-debate commentary started.  I was watching CNN. Blitzer’s first reaction was a tie.  Except for ultra-lib Van Jones, all of the panelists took Biden to the hoop for being disrespectful – with virtually no remarks re: content.  Switched to Fox and Chris Wallace – who I think is pretty fair – said “I’ve seen every presidential and VP debate – this was an unprecedented level of disrespect and discourtesy …. by a sitting VP.”  Then came the CNN insta-poll … Ryan 48, Biden 44.  Maybe I should have more faith in the American people.

3. The debate reminded me of the 1976 Olympics (I think it was 1976).  The US boxers were very good, very well trained, very “scientific”. Cuban boxers came with a vengeance and charged the ring like bulls.  They knocked the Americans off-stride and took away a handful of medals.

4. I also flashed back to the Cheney-Lieberman debate – which I thought was the best ever. They disagreed on practically every issue.  But, they were logical and respectful.  So, people could really understand their views.  When they shook hands afterwards, you could see the mutual respect.

5. I expect 2 big stories: Libya and abortion.  Libya because Biden contradicted the prior day’s sworn testimony and threw the Intelligence folks under the bus.  That’ll keep Libya in the news.  I was surprised that the moderator asked about abortion. I thought Ryan stated a sincere pro-life position – but will get hammered for being at war with women.

6. Best line of the night was when Biden asserted that Catholic organizations weren’t being forced to fund abortions & contraception. Ryan’s retort;”Then, why are 20 Catholic organizations suing the government?”

7. Yes, Biden said 47% three or four times.  Did it have any impact?

8. Yeah, Ryan is young – probably too young to be President.  He’ll grow out of that limitation fast. The thought of Biden ascending to the Presidency literally scares me – anybody want that personna running the country?

9. My wild card: keep in mind that Obama owns the youth vote … many (most?) people vote on emotions and candidate’s “cues” … I think that Ryan played as a smart, young, next-gen kind of a guy … (and, jacked, to boot) … it’ll be interesting to see if Ryan connected with some young guys and single women.

10. Bottom line: debate will have little no impact on the polls or the election …

Now, I’ll turn on the TV and listen to what the pundits are saying this morning …

>> Latest Posts

Unemployment claims are down (if you don’t count California) … and, yes, the BLS streak continues.

October 12, 2012

The BLS would morph into a punch line if the stakes weren’t so high.

Let’s do the easy part first.

Now we’re up to at least 22 election season weeks in a row that the BLS’s “headline number” has under-reported the number of initial unemployment claims … and cast the jobs situation as brighter than it really is.

Based on Thursday’s BLS report, the number for the week ending Sept. 29 was revised upward from 367,000 to 369,000.

I’ll complain to the BLS Commish when President Obama appoints one.

see the HFs post: BLS Commissioner’s post vacant since January

image

* * * * *

Bigger Issue this Week

This week, the BLS reported spectacularly good news …  claims down 30,000 (after revising last week’s claims up).

While the BLS report failed to mention the point, somewhere between 15,000 and 25,000 claims from California weren’t processed in time to be included.

Say what?

Business Insider did a nice job decoding the situation:

Some of the jobless claims in one large state–California–were not included in the claims reported to the Department of Labor this week. 

When a state’s jobless claims bureau is short-staffed, sometimes the state does not process all of the claims that came in during the week in time to get them to the DOL.

Our source [at the BLS]  believes that this is what happened this week.

The California claims that were not processed in time to get into this week’s jobless report will appear in future reports, most likely next week’s or the following week’s.

In other words, those reports might be modestly higher than expected.

Our source believes that the number of California claims that were not processed totaled about 15,000-25,000.

Thus, if one were to “normalize” the overall not-seasonally-adjusted jobless claims number, it would increase by about 15,000-25,000.

This week’s “normalized” jobless claims number, therefore, would be about 355,000-365,000, not the 339,000 that was reported.

Are you kidding me?

And, Business Insider missed a key line in the BLS report:

“The largest increases in initial claims for the week ending September 29 were in New York (+2,764) and  California (+2,069)”

So, the missing California claims may be even higher … if the missing regions kept pace with the rest of the state

This is getting silly.

>> Latest Posts

Who would you trust to handle your family’s money & bank accounts – Obama or Romney?

October 10, 2012

Interesting question asked in the latest Fox News poll.

Not surprisingly, Romney gets the nod 50% to 38%

image

Hmmm.

Remember, the Fed gov’t doesn’t have any money of it’s own – it just takes and manages our money.

And, since voter preferences are running about 50-50 … about 12% either don’t think the question is relevant or are satisfied having the inferior money-handler handling their dough.

Go figure.

* * * * *
Update

I was asked about possible sampling bias …. here are the “internals” with party affiliation … and more

click to view

Draw your own conclusions.

>> Latest Posts

Re: job creation … Steve Wynn blasts Obama … again!

October 10, 2012

Holy Smokes!

Steve Wynn, is CEO of Wynn Resorts.

image

He unloaded on President Obama again.

Punch line: “I’m afraid of the president. I have no idea what goofy idea, what crazy, anti-business program this administration will come up. I have no idea. And I have to tell you Jon that every business guy I know in the country is frightened of Barack Obama and the way he thinks.”

click to view
image

Wrap: “I can’t stand the idea of being demagogued, that is put down by a president who has never created any jobs and who doesn’t even understand how the economy works.”

* * * * *
Ken’s Prediction: I heard directly from a Fortune 500 CEO that he – and other CEO’s – were afraid to speak out against Obama because they feared retaliation from the administration. I heard directly from a guy who owned a highly profitable chain of auto dealerships that were closed when he spoke out against the auto bailouts.

Now, since Obama’s on the ropes, I expect a cascade of business execs to start speaking out.

>> Latest Posts

After losing Big Bird, Obama loses old birds … AARP tells Team O to cease and desist.

October 10, 2012

One of the few shots that Romney missed during the debate was when Pres. Obama gave the AARP a shout-out for supporting ObamaCare.

Why?

Do you think that the  AARP supported ObamaCare because it cares deeply about seniors?

image

Nope.  It’s because the elimination of Medicare Advantage programs was a windfall for the AARP insurance business:

Thanks to its cuts to Medicare Advantage, ObamaCare is expected to expand the number of seniors buying “medigap” supplemental insurance plans,”

AARP controls 34 percent of the market for such plans.

According to a 2011 House Ways and Means Committee report, AARP stands to make between $55 million and $166 million from ObamaCare in 2014 alone
Source: Washington Examiner

Apparently the AARP is feeling guilty about their ObamCare pay-off

According to the Washington Examiner

AARP released a statement telling Obama not to do that again.

“While we respect the rights of each campaign to make its case to voters, AARP has never consented to the use of its name by any candidate or political campaign. AARP is a nonpartisan organization and we do not endorse political candidates nor coordinate with any candidate or political party.”

Losing Big Bird and Old Birds in the same week can’t be a good sign.

>> Latest Posts

Dissed: Big Bird tells Team O to pull ad.

October 9, 2012

According to the WSJ

Big Bird  isn’t thrilled about his cameo in the presidential race.

image

The folks at Sesame Street are asking the Obama campaign to pull down its TV ad  that mocks Mitt Romney for vowing to yank the subsidy to PBS.

At the presidential debate in Denver last week, Mr. Romney said he would end the subsidy in view of the nation’s fiscal troubles.

Team O’s retort: “Mitt Romney knows it’s not Wall Street you have to worry about, it’s Sesame Street.”

Sesame Street isn’t amused.

Sesame Workshop, a nonprofit educational organization, told Team O: “we do not endorse candidates or participate in political campaigns. We have approved no campaign ads, and as is our general practice, have requested that the ad be taken down.”

An Obama campaign spokesman said the campaign is “reviewing their concerns”

You know you’ve had a bad week when Big Bird doesn’t want to be associated with you … even when you vow to keep shoveling dough at him.

>> Latest Posts

Obama preps for next debate with another meatgrinder interview ..

October 9, 2012

Obviously, Letterman and the ladies of The View didn’t rough Obama up enough.

So, he’s changing venues.

Obama taped an interview with Linda Ellerbee of Nick News

That’s Nick as in Nickelodeon.

image

He answered questions regarding gun control, jobs, immigration, same-sex marriage, outsourcing, bullying and obesity, as well as light-hearted questions including his most embarrassing moment.

“By answering kids’ questions directly, candidates show respect for kids,” says Linda Ellerbee.

Source

* * * * *

Flash: Big Bird Appears in Obama ad

click to view
image

>> Latest Posts

“Liar, liar pants on fire” …. eh, fugetaboutit

October 9, 2012

President Obama thought that his go-to punch during the debate was a study by the a non-partisan research group that “proved” that Romney’s tax plan “didn’t add up” and would result in middle class tax increases and cuts to Autistic kids’ healthcare.

image

Since Romney boldly rejected that shot during the debate, Team Obama has been running around with their hair on fire, screaming that Romney lied when he said his plan’s numbers tied together.

Well, for openers, the non-partisan research group is the left-leaning Tax Policy Center … and one of the economists used to work on the Obama campaign.

Hmmm.

More important, the assertion that Mitt’s plan is out-of-whack is based on a paper written by Harvard economist Martin Feldstein and Princeton economist Harvey Rosen.

Prof. Rosen has stepped forward to say that’s not true.

Prof. Rosen told the Weekly Standard  that the Obama campaign is misrepresenting his paper on Romney’s tax plan

Specifically, Prof. Rosen said:

I can’t tell exactly how the Obama campaign reached that characterization of my work.

It might be that they assume that Governor Romney wants to keep the taxes from the Affordable Care Act in place, despite the fact that the Governor has called for its complete repeal.

The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same.

That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral.

You can check the math that shows Romney’s plan is mathematically possible … and, shows that the only hurdle is repealing ObamaVare and its tax hikes … an action that’s high on Romney’s to do list.

Bottom line: Seems that Team Obama may be lying when it says that Romney is lying … at least about his tax plan.

>> Latest Posts

Boing! Boing !!

October 8, 2012

Pew Research reported the results of its first post-debate poll.

Better news for Mitt than I expected.

First, Pew confirms the insta-poll number from debate nite … 2 of 3 people thought that Romney won the debate … 20% of all people (mostly the 44% of Dems) thought Obama won it … (those people also probably think that Elvis is still alive.)

image

* * * * *
Likeability

Interestingly, Romney pulled even with Obama on likeability … Obama lost 5 points, Mitt gained 5 points  … now,roughly half of all folks view each of the candidates favorability.

That’s a big deal since Obama has been showcasing his likeability on The View, Letterman, etc.

image

 

* * * * *
Most important

There was a 12 point swing in the Presidential horse race number among likely voters … pre-debate, Obama was leading by 8 points … after the debate, Mitt is leading by 4.

Based on the poll’s “internals”, Romney gained ground among all groups except blacks …  who still gave Obama 92% support.

Game on.

image

>> Latest Posts

Boing!

October 8, 2012

Gallup’s Daily Tracking Poll says that Romney got a 5-point bounce from the debates … Mitt +2, Obama –3 … putting the race dead even.

image

>> Latest Posts

Unemployment claims up, unemployment rate down … huh?

October 7, 2012

Here’s some more conflicting data for you.

The BLS has been reporting unemployment claims pretty level for the year … but increasing lately.

Defying gravity (and logic), the unemployment rate has going down … an inverse relationship.

Hmmm.

Magic?

image

>> Latest Posts

Piling on: New Yorker cover says it all …

October 6, 2012

Things are bad when you’re a liberal and the New Yorker turns on you …

image

Maybe Clint Eastwood was prophetic …

>> Latest Posts

Encore: “It is important not to read too much into any one monthly report”

October 5, 2012

… unless the data is good, that is.

Team Obama’s victory lap re: last month’s favorable jobs report was unexpected (<= sarcasm), since they have said repeatedly:

“It is important not to read too much into any one monthly report”

Below is an encore post … a stroll down memory lane …

* * * * *

What are you going to believe, the facts or our rhetoric?

Reported by Chris Moody of Yahoo News

When the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced the nation’s latest national employment last week, the Obama administration stressed that people should not “read too much” into the data.

Mitt Romney’s campaign pounced, and flagged the fact that the White House has repeated that same line nearly every month since November 2009.

See below for the roundup of articles from WhiteHouse.gov that Romney’s campaign posted on its site. In many of the posts, the authors for the administration do acknowledge that they repeat themselves:

June 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is informative to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.”

May 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.”

April 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.”

March 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.” (LINK:)

February 2012: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign.”

January 2012: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign.”

December 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

November 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

October 2011: “The monthly employment and unemployment numbers are volatile and employment estimates are subject to substantial revision. There is no better example than August’s jobs figure, which was initially reported at zero and in the latest revision increased to 104,000. This illustrates why the Administration always stresses it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

September 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

August 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

July 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

June 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

May 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

April 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

March 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

February 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

January 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

December 2010: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

November 2010: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

October 2010: “Given the volatility in monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

September 2010: “Given the volatility in the monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

July 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative. It is essential that we continue our efforts to move in the right direction and replace job losses with robust job gains.”

August 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”

June 2010: “As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”

May 2010: “As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”

April 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”

March 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”

January 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”

November 2009: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”

In other words, it’s important not to read too much into the Obama administration’s past 3-1/2 years of performance.

So much for accountability …

Thanks to SMH for feeding the lead

>> Latest Posts

If you missed the debate …

October 5, 2012

Here’s a 90 second recap that tells you all that you need to know …

click to view

image

>> Latest Posts

Spanked! … Here’s why.

October 4, 2012

It was was fun watching the MSNBC post-debate show last nite.  No tingle up Chris Matthews’ leg.

CNN ran a “scientific poll” of debate watchers … Wolf Blitzer squirmed to rationalize the 67 to 25 Romney win.  Their panel’s  best excuse: “Must have over-sampled Republicans.”

Hmmm.

Suddenly over-sampling matters.

Both CNN and MSNBC were asking: “Why didn’t Obama bring his “A” game tonite?”

First, I think he did … but, for the sake of argument,  I’ll give the benefit of the doubt.

Still, I think pundits are missing the likely “why?”

My take: 3 things took Obama off the game his loyalists expected:

1. Benghazigate … while the topic wasn’t on the docket, I gotta believe that –- behind the scenes – that’s using up a lot of Obama’s energy.  Foreign policy in flames, caught lying, forced to play down nailing Bin Laden, CNN broke media ranks and started reporting the cover-up.  That’s gotta be taking a toll

2 Hampton speech … the Tuesday release of the factually flawed and racially divisive speech Obama gave in 2007 took “47%” off the table … if he had hit Romney with that, it would have opened the floodgates for a stream of dot points re: how Obama has been dividing the country … I bet Romney regrets that Obama didn’t bring it up.

3. $17,000 deduction cap … great play by Team Romney on Tuesday … sent Team Obama scrambling, diffused the “get specific” line, and left Obama with a weak argument: “Create jobs by taxing the rich”.

Collectively, I think that – behind the scenes – Obama was more focused on these 3 “distractions” than on the debate … and it showed.

* * * * *

For the record, I think Obama did bring his A game … he was holding a bad hand, being forced to defend his record … he wasn’t going head-to-head with the ladies of the View … and he had to go without his crutch …

As Bill Maher tweeted: “Maybe the guy does need a teleprompter”.

Michael Moore tweeted:“This is what happens when u pick John Kerry as your debate coach.”

Bottom line: The Emperor just wasn’t wearing any threads…

>> Latest Posts

Now, you’re talking … firm to score debate with a real BS detector.

October 3, 2012

This is too good to be true: “Obama and Romney to face real lie detector test during debate.”

image

According to the Daily Caller:

When Barack Obama and Mitt Romney face off for the first time at tonight’s presidential debate in Denver, they’ll also be taking a lie detector test.

A spokesman for the group Americans for Limited Government announced that thee group has contracted with a company to use new truth detecting technology to determine whether either candidate is lying during the debate.

“For the first time, within a few hours of a political debate, the American people will know if the candidates are telling the truth, and better be able to judge what promises are real, and which ones are nothing more than political pandering.”

The group says they hope to release the results from Voice Analysis Technology within three hours of the debate.

Voice Analysis Technology  has done work for high-profile criminal cases … and have done interrogations for the Department of Defense, Bureau of Prisons, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and 60 other law enforcement agencies.

If only the process were in real time with a BS meter on the screen …

>> Latest Posts

Romney’s $17,000 tax fix … I like it!

October 3, 2012

According to ABC News, Mitt floated an elegantly simple idea for cleaning up the tax code:

Cut every bracket’s marginal rates and  limit deductions to $17,000.

Specifically, Romney said:

“As an option you could say everybody’s going to get up to a $17,000 deduction; and you could use your charitable deduction, your home mortgage deduction,  your healthcare deduction… to fill that bucket, if you will, that $17,000 bucket that way

And higher income people might have a lower number.”

For the record, the idea would hurt me personally since I carry a couple of jumbo mortgages and make charitable donations.

Still, I think the idea is GREAT.

It simplifies the tax code … and levels the field, say, between renters and home owners.

I’ll continue to give to charities … so will Mitt … so will most current donors.

If charities don’t have powerful enough value propositions to raise money, that’s their problem.

I really like that the change would screw folks in high tax Blue states – e.g. NY, CA – since the deduction for state & local taxes would fall under the cap.

There’s less of an impact on folks in well run states (like VA) … that’ll give tax & spend states more motivation to clean up their own acts.

Sure, there are plenty of details to be worked out (e.g. how to handle child credits) … but, I think this simple plan might be a game-changer.

>> Latest Posts

Possibly the dumbest editorial ever …

October 3, 2012

The WSJ carried an editorial by Alan Blinder, a Princeton prof,  tiltled “The Case Against a CEO in the Oval Office”.

It should have been titled “How we in the ivory tower – who have guaranteed life-time employment and have never set foot in a business – think that business works.”

Blinder’s central thesis: Business people fail in government because there’s no bottom line — and compromise is obligatory.

Presidential history teaches us that the abilities, character traits and attitudes it takes to succeed in business have little in common with what it takes to succeed in government. In some respects, they are antithetical.”

Say, what?

I don’t know where to start …

First, he obviously is a non-quant economist … he thinks that the law of large numbers and statistically significant samples also applies to small numbers and insufficiently small samples.  He concludes that some of our 44 presidents were good ones … and that some of them were politicos and not biz people … and, “the two truly successful businessmen to win the presidency were Herbert Hoover and George H.W. Bush” … and, we know how that turned out.

Case closed..

Huh?

Then, he lowers the boom, quoting from  Nolan Bushnell, “the highly successful entrepreneur who founded Chuck E. Cheese” who said “Business is a good game — lots of competition and a minimum of rules. You keep score with money.” Blinder concludes “that’s virtually the opposite of being president of the United States”.

Note: Not Jack Welch, not the CEO of a successful Fortune 500 company … nope, he centers his argument around Chuck E. Cheese’s daddy.

Good enough for me.

More specifically, Blinder asserts that companies are dictatorships, not democracies … they ignore all stakeholders other than shareholders.

Gee, I wouldn’t have picked up on that one  from my many managerial and board meetings.

My absolute favorite: “Sound companies dote on efficiency …. and, while there are niches in the federal government where efficiency matters … the  big decisions aren’t about efficiency at all. It may even be critical to cut people a little slack here and there.”

He forgot to add: “And, cover for the inefficiency by taxing people who make more than I do their fair share.”

Unbelievable.

He also opines: “A good president communicates well with people and inspires them … Barack Obama may never have met a payroll, but he’s a gifted orator, and empathy and fairness are in his bones … traits … not prized in CEOs.”

To be honest, his appearance on the View during the Libyan crisis didn’t exactly inspire me.

To that point, check out the adLeadership… just sroll down to the video

Gimme a break, man.

>> Latest Posts

Spreading the wealth … from the suburbs to the center city.

October 3, 2012

Last night, the Daily Caller released an “explosive” new tape of Obama speaking to a group of black ministers at Hampton college in 2007.

I didn’t think the tape’s revelations were all that explosive.

But, one part of the report did catch my attention:

Obama said: “We don’t need to build more highways out in the suburbs,” where, the implication is, the rich white people live.

Instead, Obama says, federal money should flow to “our neighborhoods”.

No problem with the last part … I’m all for urban development … transportation, schools, businesses.

The rub is that Obama positioned a zero sum game between the cities and the suburbs … with redistribution from the suburbs to the cities.

First, I don’t recollect his being so direct on that point in his campaign speeches … hmmm.

Second, brought to mind a recent book on the subject that I largely dismissed at first glance.

Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and author of “Spreading the Wealth: How Obama Is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities”.

His central premise was summarized in Forbes:

In the eyes of the leftist community organizers, suburbs are instruments of bigotry and greed — a way of selfishly refusing to share tax money with the urban poor.

To reverse the trend, some groups advocate systematically redistributing the wealth of America’s suburbs to the cities via “regional tax-base sharing,” a practice by which suburban tax money is directly redistributed to nearby cities and less-well-off “inner-ring” suburbs.

image

President Obama has lent the full weight of his White House to the efforts.

A federal program called the Sustainable Communities Initiative, for example, has salted planning commissions across the country with “regional equity” and “smart growth” as goals.

These are, of course, code words.

“Regional equity” means that, by their mere existence, suburbs cheat the people who live in cities.

It means, “Let’s spread the suburbs’ wealth around” – i.e., take from the suburbanites to give to the urban poor.

“Smart growth” means, “Quit building sub-divisions and malls, and move back to where mass transit can shuttle you between your 800 square foot apartment in an urban tower and your downtown job.”

Suburbs are for sellouts: That is a large and overlooked theme of Obama’s famous memoir, Dreams from My Father. The city is the moral choice.

He attributed urban decline to taxpayer “flight” to the suburbs.

So, compulsory redistribution of suburban tax money to cities was the only lasting solution to urban decay.

Obama’s uncovered Hampton speech may boost Kurtz’ book sales and unsettle some suburbanites … especially those sitting in bumper-to-bumper commuting traffic.

>> Latest Posts

Dirty politics: Romney trashed … by his garbage man.

October 2, 2012

Yep – the O-Team has literally dragged the campaign into the gutter.

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) – a union supporting Obama – tracked down the garbage man on Romney’s route and got him to testify against Mitt.

The charge: not once has Romney given the dude Gatorade … proof positive that Romney doesn’t get it … that he’s only for rich folks.

click to view
image

You just can’t make this stuff up.

The economy is stalled, the Middle East is ablaze, and these clowns are pitching Mitt Romney’s garbage man.

Geez.

>> Latest Posts

No economist foresaw the severity of the recession … and no president could have done a better job … wrong and WRONG!

October 2, 2012

Obama has been stumping that no economists foresaw the severity of the recession … so don’t blame him the a trillion dollar faux-stimulus didn’t keep unemployment under 8%.

Former President Clinton pitched at the DNC that no president – not even him – could have pulled us out of the dive better than Barack did.

Huh?

Last weekend, the  NY Times debunked the first claim:

President-elect Obama’s economic team spent the final weeks of 2008 trying to assess how bad the economy was.

It was during those weeks ..when they first discussed academic research by the economists Carmen M. Reinhart and Kenneth S. Rogoff that would soon become well known.

Ms. Reinhart and Mr. Rogoff  … were arguing that financial crises led to slumps that were longer and deeper than other recessions.

Almost inevitably … policy makers battling a crisis made the mistake of thinking that their crisis would not be as bad as previous ones.

Obama advisers … knew the history … yet, of course,  they did repeat it.

By late 2008, the full depth of the crisis was not clear, but enough of it was.

A few prominent liberal economists were publicly predicting a long slump.

The Obama team, in private, discussed the Reinhart-Rogoff work.

So why didn’t that work do more to affect the team’s decisions?

Want more proof?

On 12/24/2008, USA Today published a piece titled: Forecasters share predictions for economy’s outlook in 2009

The punch lines:

If the recession continues past the spring, as many economists predict, it will be the most prolonged one since the Great Depression.

Employers are expected to continue to shed jobs at a rapid pace.

Consumers will pull back spending.

Businesses will cancel equipment purchases. Unsold, empty homes will dot city blocks.

I guess what Team Obama means is Goolsbee, Romer, and Bernstein didn’t see the severity.

Clinton’s claim of un-doability is just plain silly.

Reagan inherited a recession as severe as the one Obama inherited, plus 18% inflation.

He pulled the economy out in 1-term … so, there !

Team Obama seems to have a penchant for re-writing history.

>> Latest Posts

What’s up with Gallup?

October 1, 2012

Like most Romney supporters, I’m grabbing at straws to find hope in the recent polls.

Gallup has some recent numbers that have me scratching my head.

Last week, according to Gallup, Obama’s approval rating skyrocketed.

According to my analysis, Gallup had Obama’s approval jumping by an unprecedented 12 points in a single day.

Technical note: To isolate daily movements, I “unpacked” the 3 -day averages to see what the newest day’s score would have had to be to move the 3-day average.

Really?

The economy’s tanking and the Middle East is afire … and Obama’s approval jumps.

image

Just doesn’t pass the smell test.

So, I did a little digging.

Here’s an article I picked up from earlier in the month.

Senior Obama Campaign adviser David Axelrod reportedly contacted The Gallup Organization to discuss the company’s research methodology after their poll’s findings were unfavorable to the President.

After declining to adjust their methodology, Gallup was named in an unrelated lawsuit by the DOJ. 

Probably unrelated to the numbers, but sure looks funny.

>> Latest Posts

Shocker: Profs shell out $$$ … got Obama.

September 25, 2012

No surprise that liberal university profs support Obama.

What may be surprising is that they’re throwing money into the pot … in a big way.

image

According to the Washington Times

Professors are stocking Obama’s campaign war chest.

The elite fundraising committee through which President Obama solicits his largest campaign donations relied overwhelmingly on professors from equally-elite universities last month.

The top donors, measured by frequency of donation, were Duke University, the University of Michigan, University of California, University of Washington and Stanford University, and Mr. Obama’s alma maters of Columbia and Harvard.

>> Latest Posts

Breaking news: Romney’s tax rate only 14.1% … but his all important GBSR is 43%

September 21, 2012

OK, Romney released his 2011 tax return.

  • In 2011, the Romneys paid $1,935,708 in taxes on $13,696,951 in mostly investment income.
  • The Romneys’ effective tax rate for 2011 was 14.1%.
  • The Romneys donated $4,020,772 to charity in 2011, amounting to nearly 30% of their income.

Holy Buffett, Mitt only paid 14.1% in Federal income taxes … a lower rate than Warren’s secretary.

Scoundrel.

Let’s re-write the tax code.

Not so fast.

Last fall, the Homa Files coined a new metric: the GBSR™ – “Give Back to Society Rate

We defined the GBSR™ as the sum of taxes paid plus charitable contributions – since those are all money that’s supposed to be going to the common good, albeit administered by different organizations – divided by AGI.

In Romney’s case, his release says that he made $13.7 million … paid $1.9 million in taxes … and donated a whopping $4.02 million to charities.

So, his tax rate may sound meager @ 14.1%, but his GBSR™ is about 43% – and that’s not counting state & local income taxes.

My bet: add S&L taxes in and Mitt‘s GBSR™ is way over 45%.

So, it just may be that the tax code is leading fat cats to do the right thing – it’s just that they’re giving much of their dough to private charities instead of the Feds.

Do you blame them?

* * * * *
Romney’s 20 year tax history

According to the Standard ,,,

  • In each year during the entire 20-year period, the Romneys owed both state and federal income taxes.
  • Over the entire 20-year period, the average annual effective federal tax rate was 20.20%.
  • Over the entire 20-year period, the lowest annual effective federal personal tax rate was 13.66%.
  • Over the entire 20-year period, the Romneys gave to charity an average of 13.45% of their adjusted gross income.
  • Over the entire 20-year period, Romney’s GBSR™ the total federal and state taxes owed plus the total charitable donations deducted represented 38.49% of total AGI.

* * * * *
For comparison …

Filers in Obama’s millionaire range ($200,000 to $250,000) donate about 2.5% of their income to charities.

image

>> Latest Posts

Do Americans think that they can trust government?

September 20, 2012

Yes for state and local governments …  the Federal government: not so much.

According to Gallup, less than 1 in 5 Americans say that they trust the Federal government

… over 80% only trust the Federal government some of the time or never.

 

image

* * * * * *

According to Gallupa majority say that they trust state governments to handle their problems

…. about 2 in 3 think they can trust their local governments.

The lesson to politicos: keep it local … decentralized … closer (and more responsive) to the people.

 

image

>> Latest Posts

Reprise: Who do income tax payers support – Obama or Romney?

September 19, 2012

We posted this last week, ahead of the curve …

Since the bruhaha erupted when Carter’s grandson leaked the pirated tape of Romney speaking to donors, I thought a repost was in order …

Bottom line: It’s not 100% taxpayers for Romey; 100% non-taxpayers for Obama … but there is a statistically significant difference.

* * * * *

Who do tax payers support – Obama or Romney?

That’s an easy one … but, the latest CNN poll was the first I spotted that divides the population along those lines … or, at least, sorta does.

CNN breaks the sample by those earning less than and more than $50,000 .

$50,000 is about the point where folks have to start paying Federal income taxes.*

No surprises in the data.

Romney has the edge among Federal tax payers.

Obama gets those who don’t pay Federal income taxes … by a whopping 57% to 42%.

Uh-oh.

image

* P.S. Yeah, yeah, yeah about payroll taxes … but they are “insurance” payments with directly associated benefits.

>> Latest Posts

Behavioral analytics … bad when Target does it … OK for political campaigns?

September 19, 2012

A couple of months ago Target got some bad press when it was revealed that the company was mining customers’ purchase histories to slot them into behavioral groups susceptible to tailored promotional pitches.

For example, Target identified purchases that mothers-to-be made early in their pregnancies – sometimes before they even knew they were pregnant.  Think bigger jeans, skin care lotions.

Many folks railed that it was an example of big brother invasion of privacy.

Well, guess what?

Political campaigns are using the same methods that Target was using

The modern science of politics is increasingly based on principles from behavioral psychology and data analytics.

image

Campaigns today mine large data bases with mathematical algorithms that slot folks into categories and provide the basis for how people should be approached (or ignored).

According to the WSJ:

Perhaps the most valuable data in modern campaigns comes from statistical “microtargeting” models—the political world’s version of credit scores.

Campaigns gather thousands of data points on voters, culled from what they put on their registration forms, what they have told canvassers who have visited their homes in the past, and information on their buying and lifestyle habits collected by commercial data warehouses.

The campaigns then run algorithms trawling for patterns linking those demographic characteristics to the political attitudes measured in their polling.

Financial institutions run such statistical models to generate predictions about whether a given individual will demonstrate a certain behavior, like paying a bill on time or defaulting on a loan.

Campaigns do the same, only they are interested in predicting political behavior.

So it’s typical now to generate individual scores, presented as a percentage likelihood, that a voter will cast a ballot, support one party or the other, be pro-choice or antiabortion, or respond to a request to volunteer.

These scores now stick to voters as indelibly as credit scores.

And just as a bank officer won’t sign off on a loan without requesting one, a field director for a campaign won’t send a volunteer to a voter’s door without knowing the relevant number.

BTW: It’s Team Obama that’s doing most of this stuff.

Bad for Target … but OK for Obama.

Hmmm

* * * * *

WSJ source: “The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns” by Sasha Issenberg

>> Latest Posts

Are you angry with the Federal government?

September 18, 2012

According to a Pew Research poll, 1 in 5 Americans are angry with the Federal government

… another 56% say they’re frustrated with the Federal government

That leaves less than 1 in 5 who are basically content with the Federal government.

How are you feeling these days?

image

>> Latest Posts

Look for Mitt ads on the ‘Price is Right’ … and Dems on Springer.

September 18, 2012

The Washington Times did an analysis of Dem and GOP TV ad placements to reverse engineer their respective targets and strategies.

Here are some of the findings:

  • Republicans are at an extreme disadvantage when it comes to television advertising because Democrats watch more TV.
  • Every single genre of TV programming has a Democratic-leaning audience, with sports coming the closest to a partisan balance.
  • Sports and documentaries, have audiences that are far more inclined to vote.
  • Shark Tank,” a reality program about entrepreneurship, has only 18 percent Democratic ads, and the law-and-order favorite “Cops” is heavily Republican.
  • Venerable game shows, while barely registering as blips in modern pop culture, remain among the top destinations for political ads because of their largely older base of viewers who are likely to go to the polls.

  image

  • The Price Is Right” is second among all TV shows for Romney ads and third for spots for Obama.
  • Democrats are advertising during daytime shows watched by high numbers of unemployed people, including those who rely on welfare and other social services.
  • More generally, the unemployed watch whatever’s on at 3 a.m., or Jerry Springer’ or Maury Povich.
  • All “Jerry Springer” ads have been for Democrats. PAC Priorities USA has made 10 separate buys on Springer.
    image
  • Nearly every political ad during the adult cartoon series “Family Guy” is for a Democrat.
  • More than 80 percent of political spots during “The Young and the Restless,” the long-running soap opera, tout liberal candidates and causes.
  • Relatively inexpensive ads during daytime soap operas watched by stay-at-home moms are abundant, and are used primarily by Democrats.
  • Reality-dating programs have a skewed Democratic audience that’s below average in likelihood to vote.
  • Obama has advertised heavily on courtroom reality shows such as “Judge Judy”  whose viewers include large numbers of black voters.

The implicit Democratic strategy according to the Washington Times:

The more lowbrow the show, the better.

“People who are low in political information can be more persuadable,”

“If you get someone that’s watching ‘[Keeping Up With] the Kardashians,’ and they’re a swing voter, and see one or two ads,” that could make the difference because that ad may be the only political information they digest.

Sometimes I wonder if “1-man, 1-vote” is overrated …

>> Latest Posts

Re: Woodward’s book … save your $$$ … here’s my synopsis.

September 17, 2012

Given Woodward’s rep,  the pre-release hype, and anticipation of some good dirt on Obama …. I downloaded the Kindle version as soon as it became available.

image

I thought it was tedious with relatively little new news … reminded me of most movies: all the good parts are in the 2-minute trailer … rest of the movie is filler.

The broad theme – wisely reported —  is that Obama is clueless re: how big organizations run, what  a CEO does, how a CEO should act, and generally, how to implement ideas.

That shouldn’t surprise anybody since Obama  hadn’t run anything before becoming President, hadn’t been exposed to any effective big organization leaders and openly despises CEOS (except the late great Steve Jobs and Warren “Please Tax Me More” Buffett).

Verizon CEO Seidenberg “worried that Obama did not appreciate the importance of business. Sure, he understood it intellectually, but did he really admire the guts and instincts that made corporations succeed, hire workers, and grow America?” 

Here’s what caught my eye …

* * * * *

Obama is broadly disrespected by Congressional leaders (both House and Senate, both parities) … and his own staff.

  • Boehner ignored phone calls from Obama …  and hated “ …going down to the White House to listen to what amounted to presidential lectures.”
  • Pelosi hit the mute button and kept working when Obama would call and pontificate
  • Reid allowed a staffer to dress down the President for not having a plan … and confidentially encouraged GOPers
  • Staffers (e.g. Summers, Orzag) observed “no adult in charge” … “It was increasingly clear that no one was running Washington. That was trouble for everyone, but especially for Obama.”
  • Van Hollen: “The administration didn’t seem to have a strategy. It was unbelievable. There didn’t seem to be any core principles.”

Ken’s Take: I was a bit surprised that even Dems  think he’s a tool … they buy in to his ideology, hoped his charisma would make him a good front man – but have been disappointed, and are left trying to cover for his inadequacies.

* * * * *
Woodward presents a comparatively favorable picture of Dems: Biden, Reid, Pelosi, Van Hollen

  • Biden is presented as a savvy legislative pro who builds relationships and tries to work towards solutions … not the bungler he plays in public … McConnell: “ … a man I’ve come to respect as a straight-shooting negotiator.”
  • Reid and Pelosi come across as more thoughtful than their public personas …  effective leaders of their caucuses … cagey working the back channels with GOP leaders … generally trusted by GOP despite policy disagreements.
  • Van Hollen gets points for being a details man re: policy who’s willing to pitch and defend his points

* * * * *
Obama fails at basic CEO stuff … much like a freshly-minted MBA whose first job is running GE … 
 “When you don’t know what you don’t know, it gets you in big trouble.”

  • Disrespects people and their ideas and then expects them to support his ideas … “The polls are pretty good for me right now.”, “Do you think Ronald Reagan sat here like this?”, “I won, you lost”, “This isn’t negotiable” … surprised when folks don’t rally for him when he’s in a bind … “when you need friends, it’s too late to make them.”
  • Unable to separate the important from the incidental … “All we were going to do was nick everybody and irritate everybody and not accomplish anything.”
  • “There was no agility in the White House, no ability to get organized and move fast on critical issues”
  • Absolutely no comprehension of the difficulty of syndicating and implementing decisions … thinks agreements in meeting are the end, not the beginning of the process.
  • “Obama had no chief operating officer, no COO to implement his decisions.” … (you know, a Dick Cheney or Hillary Clinton)
  • Poor staffing choices … goes for comfort level over effectiveness … only yes-men need apply … notice how the entire economic team has turned over?
  • No structure or processes … “Any good manager, any good leader, has a team around him and a structure around him for making things work and making things happen. I never got the slightest clue that there was a structure there.” … ”The place [White House] is dysfunctional.”
  • No contingency planning … no anticipation of 2nd order effects … no Plan Bs
  • Poor negotiation skills … Coburn: “it showed how inexperienced a negotiator Obama was.”
  • No sell-in of ideas … just brute force … expects the power of his idea to carry the the day … Cantor: ”… not on the same page, not in the same book, or even the same library.”
  • Poor communications …“Most extraordinary was the repeated use of the telephone for critical exchanges. Especially baffling was President Obama’s decision to make his critical request for $ 400 billion more in revenue in a spur-of-the-moment phone call. The result was a monumental communications lapse between the key parties”
  • Poor listening skills … “Obama talked, then seemed to listen — but … was really just waiting to talk again, to make his points, to win the argument.”
  • “The president talks a good game, but when it comes time to actually putting these issues on the table, making decisions, he can’t quite pull the trigger.”
  • “How badly the White House had played what should have been a winning hand.”
  • “It was a failure of presidential leadership. He was not Reagan. He was not Clinton.”
  • “Obama really doesn’t have the joy of the game.”

* * * * *
Obama was (and is) is totally obsessed with 2 things …

  • Getting re-elected … e.g. Pushing big decisions past the 2012 election
  • Raising taxes on the top 2% … seems to be his driving mission in life

Ken’s Take:  Does Obama really think the world will change much if and when he gets his white whale?

* * * * *
A few Congressional and business leaders mused: “We were here before him and we’ll be here after him”  … 

  • Implication #1: We’ll have to live with this stuff when he’s gone … “Whatever the Congress decided could be undone by a future Congress anyhow.”
  • Implication #2: All we have to do is drag our feet and outlast him … “Guys like me can hunker down and wait you out.”

* * * * *
Best Teaching Point

Barney Frank’s advice to Paul Ryan:

Ryan sat down at one point with Representative Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat known for his biting wit and powerful intellect.

Though they were ideological opposites, Frank gave him what Ryan considered the best advice he got about how to be an effective congressman.

Be a specialist, Frank told him, not a generalist.

Focus on one set of issues.

Get on the committee that you care about, and then learn more about the topic than anybody else.

Talk to all the experts you can find … and read everything you can.

Know these things inside and out.

* * * * *
Some factoids

  • Internal Revenue Service data shows that the current tax system produces about 85 to 86 percent of what it’s supposed to … i.e. 15% non-compliance
  • 51 percent of all federal employees, including uniformed military, were at the Department of Defense.
  • Pell college grants, a Democratic and Obama favorite aimed at assisting college students, because the annual cost was now more than $ 20 billion.

* * * * *
Some random snippets

  • Golf, a game of recovery. A bad or unlucky shot wasn’t fatal. Follow it up with a good second or third shot, and you could still find yourself on the green with a chance at par, or even better. .
  • Politics meant sitting across the table from people you might not like or who were annoying. Keeping cool was essential.

* * * * *
Final note:  Woodward’s book would have been a big deal last week … Woodward caught a bad break since the Libya assassination and mid-East uprisings pushed his book out of the news coverage … .

>> Latest Posts

How many Tea Partiers voted for Obama?

September 14, 2012

According to pollsters Rasmussen & Schoen in their book “Mad as Hell … …

A significant number of self-identified Tea Party supporters —20 to 30 percent, depending on the poll — voted for Obama,

To put hat number in context:

  • A February 20, 2010, Economist/YouGov poll found that one in five Americans identify themselves as being part of the Tea Party movement.
  • Approximately 35 percent of the electorate self-identifies as Tea Party “supporters.

* * * * *

Source: Rasmussen, Scott; Schoen, Doug,
Mad As Hell (pp. 44, 219, 220).
Harper Collins, Kindle Edition.

image

>> Latest Posts

Which states’ residents are most impacted by Obama’s plan to raise taxes on the rich?

September 12, 2012

This may be common knowledge, but it was a surprise to me …

Based on the 2009 census data (latest available), just under 4% of U.S. households have income greater than $200,000.

Below are the 20 states with the highest proportion of households with incomes greater than $200,000 … led by DC, Connecticut, New Jersey and Maryland (a suburb of DC).

The interesting part:

15 of the states (or 16 depending on how you count Colorado) are Blue- Democratic states

… only 3 are Red-Republican states

… 2 are Purple-Swing states.

Hmmm.

image

>> Latest Posts

Obama’s problem with men …

September 12, 2012

Lots of media coverage re: Romney’s “problem “ with women … less about Obama’s man problem.

According to the latest CNN poll, Romney-Ryan trails Obama-Biden by 12 points among women … 42% to 54%.

But, the numbers flip for men ,,, with Romney-Ryan leading by 12 points … 55% to 43%.

Hmmm.

image

>> Latest Posts

Who do tax payers support – Obama or Romney?

September 7, 2012

That’s an easy one … but, the latest CNN poll was the first I spotted that divides the population along those lines … or, at least, sorta does.

CNN breaks the sample by those earning less than and more than $50,000 .

$50,000 is about the point where folks have to start paying Federal income taxes.*

No surprises in the data.

Romney has the edge among Federal tax payers.

Obama gets those who don’t pay Federal income taxes …  by a whopping 57% to 42%.

Uh-oh.

image

*  P.S. Yeah, yeah, yeah about payroll taxes … but they are “insurance” payments with directly associated benefits.

>> Latest Posts

Great moments in Dem-ocracy …

September 7, 2012

Earlier this week we posted re: the platform bruhaha at the DNC

On Wednesday, there was a do-over on the controversial parts of the platform: reinserting the words “God” and “Jerusalem“

If you haven’t seen the video, check it out … it’s great theater.

Pay attention to the number of votes taken (3) , how the chairman had to talk very slowly so that the Dem delegates would understand what to do, and draw your own conclusion whether the two-thirds threshold was met.

Here’s the most interesting part of the drama: floor photos taken at the time show that the vote’s results were already loaded to the teleprompter … before the vote was taken.

Apparently, the votes were counted before they were cast.

Having loved in Chicago for many years, I can tell you: that’s the Chicago way.

image

>> Latest Posts

Stepping back to see the forest from the trees …

September 6, 2012

In marketing, there’s a measure called the net promoter’s index … in essence, it’s a company’s percentage of avid supporters minus the percentage of avid disapprovers.

Gallup tracks presidential approval daily … below is Obama’s net approval rating (% approve minus % disapprove) since inauguration.

Note a couple of big picture points:

  1. The overall trend during Obama’s term has been down … even adjusting for the extraordinary hope & change starting point
  2. The most recent bounce back didn’t full recover the 2011 drop
  3. The 2012 trend has been consistently down

The big election question: will Obama continue to slide until election day or stage enough of a bounce back to squeak out a win?

image

>> Latest Posts

People more interested in platforms than speeches … and Dems served up red meat.

September 5, 2012

A couple of related items caught my eye.

First, people polled by Pew Research said that they were more interested in party platforms than convention speeches.
 image

Then, new services started reporting some potentially controversial aspects of the Dem platform:

1. For the first time ever, making no mention  of  God in the platform … much to the delight of the atheist groups and raising the question “How Will Christian Democrats React?”

2. The platform  directly endorsed tax payer funded abortions: “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports … a woman’s right to …  a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay.” Pundits are saying that “regardless of ability to pay”  is an endorsement of taxpayer-funded abortions (thru Medicaid and ObamaCare), a policy that President Obama has personally endorsed. According to a 2009 Quinnipiac poll, 72 percent of voters oppose public funding of abortion and 23 percent support it.

3. The  platform doesn’t state that Jerusalem is the capital of IsraelPundits are saying that’s a nuanced but significant a change from prior years that “could provide fuel to critics who say President Barack Obama’s commitment to Israel is weak.”

It will be interesting to see how much play these issues get in the mainstream media.

I’m betting the under …

>> Latest Posts

Who’s viewed more favorably – Obama or Romney? Biden or Ryan?

September 5, 2012

Well, well, well.

According to the most recent CNN poll, more likely voters (53%) view Romney favorably than view Obama favorably (51%).

And, more view Obama unfavorably (48%) than view Romney unfavorably (43%).

BTW: Ryan is viewed way more favorably than Biden

Think the mainstream media will pick up on these poll results?

I’m betting not.

* * * * *

CNN Question #4:

We’d like to get your overall opinion of some people in the news. As I read each name, please say  if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of these people.

image

image

>> Latest Posts

Eastwooding.

September 4, 2012

Last Thursday nite I was dismayed to watch Clint Eastwood live delivering his now infamous chat with Obama-the-empty-chair.

image

I thought the skit diminished the prime time pitches by wasting valuable time and setting, setting a wrong tone, and potentially monopolizing the next day news cycle.

Maybe I was wrong …

I think the GOP lucked into something.

First, the Eastwood pitch went viral … landing some grand symbolic punches on Obama (emperor has no clothes, empty suit, etc.) …. and coining a new pop culture expression: “Eastwooding” .

Just Google the word and you’ll see what I mean.  It was most-Googled over the weekend.

Here are  my favorite web posts … and the White House’s response.

image

image

image

I guess, sometimes it’s better to be lucky than to be smart.

>> Latest Posts

So much for an informed electorate …

September 4, 2012

According to tvnewser.com, total viewership of Romney’s speech:

image  .

Ken’s Take:

FOX’s share was greater than #2 ABC and #3 NBC combined … before you say “yeah, it was the GOP convention” … I’m betting FOX outdraws the other nets for the DNC

Only about 25 million people watched … down over 31% from 2008.  So much for an informed electorate … I guess if if the vast majority of undecideds watched it’s ok.

I channel switched between FOX and CNN …  felt sorry for CNN … pretty good stable of commentators – arguably better than FOX’s, save for the leftie flame-throwers like Begala …. surprised their ratings free-fell

MSNBC has become a parody of a news network … does anybody take them seriously? It should merge with Comedy Central.

Speaking of which … What if Comedy Central had broadcast the convention – hosted by Stewart & Colbert?  Would be interesting to see the draw since many young voters and older liberals get most of their their news from Comedy Channel.

On balance, I’m disappointed more people didn’t watch …

>> Latest Posts

BOOM: Ryan lands some direct hits…

August 31, 2012

Beyond his scapling of Obama’s record, I thought he made some points that likely to resonate with specific target groups: young voters, women and small businesses.

image

“College graduates should not have to live out their twenties in their childhood bedrooms, staring at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life.”

image

“I said, I hope it’s not a deal-breaker Mitt, but my playlist starts with AC/DC, and ends with Zeppelin.”

 

image

“My Mom started a small business, and I’ve seen what it takes …   She earned a new degree and learned new skills to start her small business.  It wasn’t just a new livelihood.  It was a new life.  And it transformed my Mom … Her work gave her hope.  It made our family proud.  And to this day, my Mom is my role model.”

image

“Behind every small business, there’s a story worth knowing. 

They didn’t come out of nowhere …

And if small businesspeople say they made it on their own, all they are saying is that nobody else worked seven days a week in their place. 

Nobody showed up in their place to open the door at five in the morning. 

Nobody did their thinking, and worrying, and sweating for them. 

After all that work, and in a bad economy, it sure doesn’t help to hear from their president that government gets the credit.”

  Game on !

>> Latest Posts

You can’t control everything that happens to you but …

August 31, 2012

… you can control the way you respond to everything that happens to you.

Thanks one of the admonitions from my adios lecture to my MBA students.

I was amped when Condi Rice used a version of the line in her speech last night.

Other snippets from her speech that caught my eye are below  …

image

The world is a chaotic and dangerous place. 

The U.S. has since the end of World War II had an answer – we stand for free peoples and free markets, we are willing to support and defend them – we will sustain a balance of power that favors freedom.

Our friends and allies must be able to trust us. From Israel to Poland to the Philippines to Colombia and across the world — they must know that we are reliable and consistent and determined.  And our adversaries must have no reason to doubt our resolve — because peace really does come through strength.

When the world looks at us today they see an American government that cannot live within its means.  They see a government that continues to borrow money, mortgaging the future of generations to come.  The world knows that when a nation loses control of its finances, it eventually loses control of its destiny.  That is not the America that has inspired others to follow our lead.

The essence of America – that which really unites us — is not ethnicity, or nationality or religion – it is an idea — and what an idea it is:  That you can come from humble circumstances and do great things.  That it doesn’t matter where you came from but where you are going.

Ours has never been a narrative of grievance and entitlement.  We have not believed that I am doing poorly because you are doing well.

We have been successful too because Americans have known that one’s status at birth was not a permanent station in life.  You might not be able to control your circumstances but you could control your response to your circumstances

Today, when I can look at your zip code and can tell whether you are going to get a good education – can I really say that it doesn’t matter where you came from – it matters where you are going.  The crisis in K-12 education is a grave threat to who we are.

We need to have high standards for our students – self-esteem comes from achievement not from lax standards and false praise.  And we need to give parents greater choice – particularly poor parents whose kids – most often minorities — are trapped in failing neighborhood schools.

And on a personal note– a little girl grows up in Jim Crow Birmingham – the most segregated big city in America – her parents can’t take her to a movie theater or a restaurant – but they make her believe that even though she can’t have a hamburger at the Woolworth’s lunch counter – she can be President of the United States and she becomes the Secretary of State.

Click to see the video or read the full transcript

>> Latest Posts

Fool me once, shame on you …

August 22, 2012

… fool me twice, shame on me.

I’ve oft-noted that I haven’t run into anybody who voted for McCain in ‘08 who’s jumping on the Obama bandwagon this year.

But, I have rum into plenty who voted Obama in ‘08 who aren’t voting for him again in ‘12.

Gallup just released a poll that directionally confirms my anecdotal evidence.

Among registered voters, 0% who voted Obama in ‘08 say they’re voting for Romney; 5% who voted for McCain are hopping on the Obama bandwagon

The 4% difference may not seem like a big deal … except when you’re in a toss-up election.

image

>> Latest Posts

Tread marks: NEWSWEEK throws Obama under the bus!

August 20, 2012

They say a picture is worth a thousand words.

Here’s the picture; below are a couple of snippets; click to read the whole article (a must read!).

Couldn’t have said it better myself …  send to friends.

image

Snippets

The question confronting the country … is not who was the better candidate four years ago. It is whether the winner has delivered on his promises. And the sad truth is that he has not.
 

In his inaugural address, Obama promised “not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.” He promised to “build the roads and bridges, the electric grids, and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.” He promised to “restore science to its rightful place and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost.” And he promised to “transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.” Unfortunately the president’s scorecard on every single one of those bold pledges is pitiful.

Welcome to Obama’s America: nearly half the population is not represented on a taxable return—almost exactly the same proportion that lives in a household where at least one member receives some type of government benefit. We are becoming the 50–50 nation—half of us paying the taxes, the other half receiving the benefits.

The president has done absolutely nothing to close the long-term gap between spending and revenue.

After all, it’s the president’s job to run the executive branch effectively—to lead the nation. And here is where his failure has been greatest.

Larry Summers told Orszag over dinner in May 2009: “You know, Peter, we’re really home alone  …  I mean it. We’re home alone. There’s no adult in charge.  … You can’t just march in and make that argument and then have him make a decision … because he doesn’t know what he’s deciding.”

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 did nothing to address the core defects of the system: the long-run explosion of Medicare costs as the baby boomers retire, the “fee for service” model that drives health-care inflation, the link from employment to insurance that explains why so many Americans lack coverage, and the excessive costs of the liability insurance that our doctors need to protect them from our lawyers.

The president just kept ducking the fiscal issue. Having set up a bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, headed by retired Wyoming Republican senator Alan Simpson and former Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles, Obama effectively sidelined its recommendations of approximately $3 trillion in cuts and $1 trillion in added revenues over the coming decade

For me the president’s greatest failure has been not to think through the implications of these challenges to American power. Far from developing a coherent strategy, he believed—perhaps encouraged by the premature award of the Nobel Peace Prize—that all he needed to do was to make touchy-feely speeches around the world explaining to foreigners that he was not George W. Bush.

America under this president is a superpower in retreat, if not retirement. Small wonder 46 percent of Americans—and 63 percent of Chinese—believe that China already has replaced the U.S. as the world’s leading superpower or eventually will.

It is a sign of just how completely Barack Obama has “lost his narrative” since getting elected that the best case he has yet made for reelection is that Mitt Romney should not be president. In his notorious “you didn’t build that” speech, Obama listed what he considers the greatest achievements of big government: the Internet, the GI Bill, the Golden Gate Bridge, the Hoover Dam, the Apollo moon landing, and even (bizarrely) the creation of the middle class. Sadly, he couldn’t mention anything comparable that his administration has achieved.

Ken’s Take:

There’s not much new news in the article’s content … all of it has been said before somewhere … much has been said here in the HomaFiles.

The news is that a liberal magazine has thrown Obama under the bus.

Newsweek, by breaking from the left-ranks, may have given permission to other media to at least jump off the bus and start reporting squarely.

OMG.

>> Latest Posts

Did the Supreme Court help Obama or Romney ?

August 17, 2012

Pundits – all of whom mis-predicted the Supreme Court decision – were largely split re: whether the decision would boost Obama’s or Romney’s Presidential chances.

Well, based on this week’s NYT-CBS poll, the SCOTUS decision was a boost for Romney:

28% said they were more likely to vote for Romney … only 13% said that they were more likely to vote for Obama … that’s more than 2 to 1.

Fair to say that the SCOTUS decision was a force boosting Romney into a dead heat in the election poll.

 

image

* * * * *

SCOTUS & Politics

From the same poll, a majority felt that  the SCOTUS decision was based on personal or political views rather than the law.

That can’t be good …

image

>> Latest Posts

A good day for Team R&R …

August 16, 2012

On Monday, I laid out the Brer Rabbit strategy that I thought Team Romney was implementing.

Note: Pundits are now calling it “Political Jujitsu”

The essence: name Ryan and lure Team Obama into the Medicare trap … get them to repeat their claim that Ryan wants to throw granny off a cliff … and then bang …  counter attack and put ObamaCare on the table.

Team Romney probably didn’t expect help from others , it got some.

First, a video of Erskine Bowles – you know, of Simpson-Bowles fame – went viral.

The video shows Bowles (a Democrat) praising Ryan and his budget.

“Have any of you all met Paul Ryan? We should get him to come to the university. I’m telling you this guy is amazing. … He is honest, he is straightforward, he is sincere. And the budget that he came forward with is just like Paul Ryan. It is a sensible, straightforward, serious budget and it cut the budget deficit just like we did, by $4 trillion. … The president as you remember, came out with a budget and I don’t think anybody took that budget very seriously. The Senate voted against it 97 to nothing.”

click to view vid
image

* * * * *
On cue, the Dem talkers started ripping on Ryan.

As soon as they did, Team Romney launched the counter-attack …  reminding folks that Medicare funds were being raided to pay for ObamaCare … taking Medicare funds away from seniors and sprinkling them to others.

click to view vid

image

* * * * *

On cue, the Dem talkers denied that Obama would ever consider raiding Medicare.

Oops.

Tape on file shows Pres. Obama telling Jake Tapper of ABC that he would, he did, and he’d make it stick.”

TAPPER: One of the concerns about health care and how you pay for it — one third of the funding comes from cuts to Medicare.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: “Right.”

TAPPER: Are you willing to pledge that whatever cuts in Medicare are being made to fund health insurance, one third of it, that you will veto anything that tries to undo that?
OBAMA: Yes.

click to view vid

image

* * * * *
That’s called “hoisting yourself by your own petards.”

>> Latest Posts

An adult choice … just might work.

August 13, 2012

First, the disclaimers: (1) I’m rooting for Romney and (2) I was hoping for Marco Rubio.

Why Marco.

Simple.

As H.L. Menchken is oft-quoted:

“No one ever went broke or lost office underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”

I think the majority of people who vote are poorly informed – accepting politicians’ focus group tested  talking points — and cast their votes based on habit, group association or superficial candidate characteristics.

So, I figured that Rubio – a cool, good looking, young, articulate Latin guy – could deliver Florida, sway some Hispanics and make some single women swoon.

In other words, strictly a vote-getting maneuver.

Morning after, I like the Ryan pick.

Why?

He’s squeaky clean.  The Team Obama muckrakers will go crazy trying to find dirt on the guy.

He’s very smart … knows the details, not just the storylines … won’t get Palinized

He’s very articulate … he’ll shred Biden in the VP debate … in fact, I’d love to see him go up against Obama with a neutral moderator (think back to Ryan’s performance in the infamous healthcare summit).

He’s all-Midwest … an area the GOP has to win … puts Wisconsin in play.

He’s Catholic … maybe the bishops will stand behind him on freedom of religion

Fiscal conservatives love him … remember 2010?

What’s the downside?

Yeah, Medicare.

Dust off the “throw Granny over the cliff ad”.

Here’s my take: Medicare is the GOP’s equivalent of Brer Rabbit’s briar patch.

I think they want it on the table.

But, you say, they’ll lose seniors.

Not so fast.

I think that bomb will be easy to diffuse … and as a bonus, it puts ObamaCare back in play:

If you are on Medicare, your benefits will not be cut. Period

In fact, Romney & I will do our best to repeal ObamaCare and restore the $500 billion of Medicare cuts that are in the law.

Think about it.

What good is Medicare if doctors stop accepting Medicare patients?

What good is Medicare if some Washington bureaucrat decides that you’re too old to get your bad hip replaced?

Romney & I won’t let that happen. Period.

I think that this is going to get interesting …

>> Latest Posts

The ObamaCare advantage in battleground states …

August 9, 2012

Goes to Romney !

According to last week’s NPR poll , likely voters in the battleground states oppose ObamaCare 52% to 39%.

Hmmm.

image

>> Latest Posts

From the pollsters’ lips to the teleprompter’s ears (and candidate’s lips) … but, what about the forest?

August 8, 2012

My students know that, at heart,  I’m a quant guy and encourage market research over gut feel.

image

So, I should salivate over the Obama campaigns reliance on market research, data mining, and precision messaging.

Excerpted from WSJ

The Obama campaign has elevated poll-testing and focus-grouping to near-clinical heights.

The results from his vaunted focus groups  drive the president’s every action: his policies, his campaign venues, his targeted demographics, his messaging.

More specifically, spotted an interesting analysis in The Hill:

Recent campaign spending records of the Obama campaign, disclosed that they’ve spent $15 million on polling since the first of the year.

Based on typical polling rate card, $15 million for polls translate to about 6 million minutes of polling time.

Assuming interview lengths of 10 minutes, that’s like 600,000 interviews.

Of course, “polling” doesn’t necessarily mean one-on-one interviewing.

Perhaps as much as a third of the $15 million may have been spent on focus groups and ad testing with dials.

Again, using normal rate cards,  upwards of 4,000 Americans may have been asked to participate in these test sessions.

Yep, from the pollsters lips to the teleprompter’s ears … to the candidate’s lips … to the voters ears.

So, what’s my beef?

First, lack of “authenticity” … a willingness to say anything to anybody if it polls well … even if it’s not true (e.g. the multiple Pinocchios that the Wash Post gave to the Bain outsourcing riff and the incredible “I spend less than any President since Harry Truman)

Second, a willingness to “tailor” the message to different groups or individuals … i.e. to pander shamelessly.

And, the larger point: losing the forest in the trees …  whipsawing based on minutiae and missing the big picture,

After all, it’s the economy, stupid.

>> Latest Posts

The “top box effect” … measuring folks with strong feelings.

August 6, 2012

Last Friday’s Rasmussen Report paints an interesting picture.

Disclaimer: yes, Rasmussen tends to lean right.

I’ve always been a proponent of the “top box effect” …  i.e. focusing of folks who either strongly approve or strongly disapprove of a product … or a candidat.

Well, Rasmussen reports that President Obama’s “Presidential Approval Index” – the strongly approves minus the strongly disapproves – is now 23 points underwater.

And, the number of folks who strongly disapprove outnumber the total number who approve (strongly plus somewhat) … 45% to 44%

Those are what’s called statistically significant numbers !

image

>> Latest Posts