Second Debate Sets Up Romney Win By DICK MORRIS Romney emerges from the second debate well positioned to win it all. The post-debate polling reflects that he solidly won on the key issues: economy, energy prices, and China. Obama scores well in his overall ratings in these surveys simply because he benefits by comparison with his sleep-walking performance in the first debate. Fundamentally, Romney's smooth, polished, dignified, articulate, sincere, and compassionate manner in the debate puts to rest eight months of Obama negative attacks on his character. Barack Obama is about to learn the lesson Jimmy Carter learned in 1980 when he lost to Reagan -- and found his lead collapsing after the debates. When a president with a failed record tries to win by attacking and demonizing his opponent, he can succeed only if there are no debates. Since neither Goldwater (1964) nor McGovern (1972) had the chance to show themselves to America in debates, the negative characterization of them by first Johnson and then Nixon stuck. But Ronald Reagan's debate performance nullified Carter's attacks and showed him not to be the war-mongering madman the president had accused him of being. Similarly, Obama's portrayal of Romney as insensitive, elitist, incapable of understanding the problems of the average person, a tax cheat, and a cold blooded capitalist all fell before Romney's real persona as it came through on television. And once Obama is stripped of his negative messaging, he has nothing to say. His defense of his economic record and his energy drilling essentially boiled down to asking people what they wanted to believe -- their own eyes or Obama's speeches. Stylistically, Romney's dignity played very well. He struck just the right balance between letting Obama walk over him (as Ryan let Biden do) and being obnoxious and petty (as Obama appeared to be). The Romney campaign has exactly the right ads on the air to exploit their debate edge. The sixty second ad they now are running in swing states, featuring Romney's first debate narrative on the economy played over faces of Americans suffering from economic distress is just the right move. Specifically, Romney: 1) Explained his tax plan very well. His suggestion that he would allow up to a flat $25,000 in deductions was excellent. 2) Recited the statistics of economic decline so well and so frequently that they will be repeated again and again by voters as they contemplate their decision. 3) Clearly pinned the blame for high gas prices on Obama by enumerating the president's anti-oil, anti-coal policies. 4) Put the China issue in play big time by explaining Chinese currency manipulation. In the next debate, Romney should drill down and explain how much Chinese chicanery and hacking costs us jobs and how passive Obama has been in the face of their conduct. 5) Demonstrated his compassion and heart in his personal stories of his ministry. He should continue just this kind of argumentation. And then there's Libya. The intervention of Candy Crowley saved Obama on the ropes. But as inappropriate as it was, her statement -- that Obama said at the outset that it was a terror attack -- was technically correct, but, ultimately wrong. We all know that Obama tried to play the attack as a rally gone awry, impelled by passion generated by a film about Islam. WE heard him say so on The View, on Letterman, at the United Nations and all over the nation for two weeks. Romney should explain that the president's goal was not to interfere with his narrative that by killing bin Laden, he had ended al Qaeda as a terrorist organization. He did not want an attack and an assassination on his record in the last two months before the election. So he pretended that it was all because of an intemperate movie. He should cite the statements of the State Department that they never considered it a terrorist attack. Then he should go on to show how Obama's foreign policy based on naïveté has failed and is going up in flames. The evidence is there: the Libya attack, the increasing likelihood that Egypt will reject the Camp David accords, the turn of the Arab Spring into a jihadist coup, the unrelenting progress of Iran toward a bomb, the failure of any effort to rein in North Korea, the growing power of Chavez in Latin America and....the brazenness of China's trade and currency policies. Romney has this election in hand. Obama is left with nothing to stand on. No record to cite. No proposals to convey. Stripped of his negative campaign, he has nothing really left to say.
Housing Starts Bloomberg Economic Calendar "Highlights The housing sector is showing somewhat stronger-than-expected health with both starts and permits gaining in the latest report. The September starts pace of 0.872 million units topped market expectations of 0.765 million and was up 34.8 percent on a year-ago basis. "The latest increase was led by the multifamily component which jumped 25.1 percent, following a 3.2 percent dip in August. However, the single-family component also improved, gaining a notable 11.0 percent in September after a 7.3 percent increase the prior month. "By region, starts in September were led by a 20.1 percent boost in the West Census region, followed by the South with a 19.9 percent increase. The Midwest also rose with a 6.7 percent boost. The Northeast dipped 5.1 percent. "Along with the recent gains in the NAHB housing index measure, homebuilders are showing moderate optimism with permits paid for. Housing permits jumped 11.6 percent in September to an annualized pace of 0.894 million, which was up 45.1 percent on a year-ago basis. Analysts forecast 0.810 million units. "On the news, equity futures rose slightly. "Housing clearly is now taking the lead for the recovery as manufacturing has softened due to weakness in Europe and Asia. The Fed's Operation Twist is gradually paying off with lower mortgage rates slowly bringing demand back up. The news is good but still from a low baseline." "Market Consensus before announcement Housing starts in August advanced 2.3 percent following a 2.8 percent slip in July. The August starts pace of 0.750 million units was up 29.1 percent on a year-ago basis. For the latest month, the increase in starts was led by the single-family component which gained 5.5 percent after a 4.5 percent decline in July. Housing permits eased in August after a moderately healthy July. Permits fell back 1.0 percent after a 6.7 percent rebound in July."
Dick Morris has a poor track record with his political predictions. Try NY Times 538 blog. Nate Silver as a statistical savant and canny gatherer of information. His record in 2008 on a state by state basis was 98%. He correctly predicted 49 out of 50 states for the Presidential race. He has some very interesting insights into the dynamics of the race and how polls can capture, distort, or miss the shifting dynamics, and the relative persistency of bounces achieved by each candidate. He lets the facts determine the output of his work. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/author/nate-silver/
nate silver seems to work for hte NY Times. You can't get more partisan by the way what was his record like for 2010. Plus he has been pushing these skewed polls this whole time. No one pushing polls skewed 5 to 10 points worse than the 2010 race can be taken seriously.
Town hall lies, moderator bias and the presidential race By: Newt Gingrich President Obama was clearly better in the second debate than in the first. His supporters can take comfort in his energy, aggressiveness, and determination. He was far stronger than in the first debate. But although Obama improved stylistically, he was profoundly dishonest on the substance. Romney was strong but not quite as good as in the first debate. He missed a huge opportunity on Libya, a big opportunity on energy, and several smaller opportunities. He was also forced to be argumentative and pushy by moderator Candy Crowleyâs constant intervention on behalf of Obama. After two debates in which the moderators were relatively passive and allowed the candidates to decide the pattern and rhythm of the debate, this town hall saw the return of the liberal activist as an interventionist force. As I have often warned when Republicans tolerate liberal moderators, they are setting up two-on-one contests in which they have to fight their way past both the moderator and the opposing candidate. Crowley repeatedly intervened to stop Romney from dismantling Obamaâs lies on taxes and womenâs issues, even though she had given him far less time to speak. Her support of Obamaâs false claim that on Sept. 12 he had described the Benghazi attack as terrorism may go down in debate history as an extraordinary propping up of falsehood. Obama in the Rose Garden called the Libya attacks âsenseless violenceâ and referred generally to âacts of terror,â then spent weeks dodging the truth on Benghazi. Everyone knows this. Within minutes after the debate Crowley acknowledged that of course Romney was âright in the mainâ: the administration did refuse for weeks to call the acts âterrorismâ or to attribute them to âterrorists.â It is precisely because so many of Obamaâs key moments were based on falsehood that we will not know for several more days who really won the town hall meeting. His lies about Libya were systematic, methodical, and as fully mendacious as his administration has been on this topic for more than a month. Four Americans, including the first ambassador to die from terrorism in 33 years, were killed and the President of the United States deliberately lied to the American people. United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice was sent out the Sunday after the attack to lie on five TV shows. Her interviews were explicitly false and misleading. The Obama administration had decided, for whatever reason, that it did not want to admit the Benghazi attacks were a deliberate assault by allies of al Qaeda. The administration was determined to pin the blame on an idiotic movie made by an anti-Muslim extremist. This was not a temporary act of dishonesty. Even when the presidentâs media spokesman was forced to concede there were terrorists behind the Benghazi attack, the president the very same day went back to blaming crowd anger caused by an anti-Muslim film. Furthermore, President Obama went to the United Nations and six times mentioned the film in his speech to the General Assembly. He did not once call the attacks terrorism. When asked outright on âThe Viewâ and on Univision whether the attacks constituted terrorism, twice he refused to say. Just look at the timeline of what the administration said surrounding the attacks and it will be very clear that the presidentâs dishonesty continued last night. Some enterprising activist is going to put President Obamaâs Benghazi falsehoods in the town hall meeting in a YouTube video with all his and his administrationâs earlier statements and the depth of their dishonesty will be vividly obvious. By Saturday this should have happened and then we will see if Obamaâs strength in last nightâs debate survives the proof of the his dishonesty. Obama was misleading in his energy answers and the gap between his claims and the fact is entirely to his disadvantage. He said that oil production is at its highest level in 16 years and that they are drilling on more public lands than the previous administration. In fact, annual leasing on federal lands is at a 30 year low. Mitt Romney was correct when he said oil production on federal lands is down 14 percent â and 9 percent for natural gas. The president just flat out lied in this exchange. Beyond his dishonesty, he will be hurt both by the price of gasoline â $2 a gallon higher than when he became president â and by the degree to which leaders in coal, oil, and gas will reject his claims. As Romney said to the president in the exchange, âI donât think anyone really believes that youâre a person whoâs going to be pushing for oil and gas and coal.â Romney may have been at his best in his closing when he kept saying that we do not have to settle for the current performance failures. In many ways President Obamaâs deliberate lying to the American people about terrorism and the death of four Americans may be the greatest Obama failure. We will see by Saturday if the country has digested the Benghazi falsehoods and rendered judgment.
Jobless Claims Bloomberg Economic Calendar "Highlights Seasonal adjustments expected that California, as it usually does, would report a jump in claims at the beginning of the quarter. Instead, the jump happened the second week. This is a major factor behind violent swings in weekly jobless claims, up 46,000 in the October 13 week after dropping a revised 27,000 in the prior week. Swings like this, which weekly data are subject to, raise the importance of the four-week average which is only slightly higher, up less than 1,000 to 365,500. This level, in what may be an overlooked plus in this report, is more than 10,000 lower than the month ago trend. "Data on continuing claims are beginning to show noticeable improvement, down a sizable 29,000 for the October 6 week. The four-week average, at 3.276 million, is back near its recovery low back in May. And, for the first time since March, the unemployment rate for insured workers is moving lower, down one tenth to 2.5 percent. "But the improvement in continuing claims is over shadowed by the big spike for initial claims in the latest week. The latest week for initial claims is the sampling week for the monthly employment report and, improvement in the four-week trend aside, points to the risk of disappointment for payroll growth and the unemployment rate. Stock futures are moving lower. "Market Consensus before announcement Initial jobless claims fell to 339,000 in the October 6 week for a 30,000 decline that is the biggest since July. The 339,000 level is the best reading of the recovery. The four-week average was down 11,500 to 364,000 and is now trending more than 10,000 below the month-ago comparison in what points to improvement for both payroll growth and the unemployment rate. A possible issue skewing the number is the adjustment which expected a big swing for the first week of the quarter that did not happen. This week's report will help clear up this issue." <img src="http://bloomberg.econoday.com/showimage.asp?imageid=23383">
Obama's Legacy Of Failure <iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lIq75QNKrcM?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The Recovery Is Better Than Romney Would Like It to Be "The challenger will always try to talk down the economy. Even back in 1996, when jobs, growth, and even middle-class incomes were really taking off, candidate Bob Dole was trying to convince everyone that things were bad and getting worse. "It is, of course, a much closer call now, but still, I doubt that Gov. Romney's assault on the recovery in Tuesday night's debate resonated as much as he'd like it to. And I think Greg Sargent is right here: team Obama should continue to push back on this point, particularly re: housing, which didn't come up at all Tuesday night. "All three major home price indices are up and the 30-year mortgage rate is at an all-time low. This combination of home price appreciation and low rates has allowed more homeowners to refinance, lowering average annual mortgage payments by around $2,200. Housing starts got a big pop Wednesday AM, hitting their strongest stride since 2008, and while the monthly data are volatile, there are signs that the inventory overhang in housing is much diminished. "Last month, auto sales hit a four year high, with annualized sales just below 15 million, the highest sales count since March 2008. Since GM and Chrysler have emerged from their government-structured bankruptcy, the industry's added almost 250,000 jobs. "Unemployment, 10 percent three years ago, is 7.8 percent -- still too high, but moving in the right direction. Mitt's got a point re: the depressed labor force participation rate, but he's all stuff and malarkey if he really thinks that explains all, or even half, of the progress on unemployment. Employment growth accelerated notably in the third quarter of the year relative to the second (see first figure here). Still, despite the momentum, the jobless rate is too high to boost workers' bargaining power and you can see that in paychecks. "Obviously we're far from out of the woods, including with housing. The GDP is growing barely at trend, unemployment is still too high, and millions of foreclosures remain in the pipeline, though foreclosure filings are at the lowest level since July 2007, according to RealtyTrac. "So it's a mixed bag, but nothing like the dark picture that Gov. Romney and his supporters have been trying to paint. We're slowly sailing out of a storm. Too slowly, in my humble opinion, due to the refusal of policy makers other than Bernanke and Co., to put some policy-induced wind in the economy's sails. "But I suspect there's NCD -- nontrivial cognitive dissonance -- between Romney's portrait of the economy and many people's experience of it, especially around some of the more tangible aspects like housing values and mortgage rates. When Sen. Dole tried to convince people otherwise back in 1996, it was a huge loser for him. The timing isn't nearly as supportive for the president, as he's faced down a much deeper and more intractable recession, with the opposite of cooperation from Congress. But the truth is that things are slowly getting better and Romney's claims to the contrary may be drowned out by this reality. "Toles, as usual, summarizes all the above perfectly:" <img src="http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2012-10-17-toles.png"> Jared Bernstein http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jared-bernstein/obama-economy-recovery_b_1975221.html
Congressional Report: Welfare Spending Soars Under Obama Newsmax Welfare spending has grown substantially over the past four years, reaching $746 billion in 2011 â or more than Social Security, basic defense spending or any other single chunk of the federal government â according to a new memo by the Congressional Research Service. The steady rise in welfare spending, which covers more than 80 programs primarily designed to help low-income Americans, got a big boost from the 2009 stimulus and has grown, albeit somewhat more slowly, in 2010 and 2011. One reason is that more people are qualifying in the weak economy, but the federal government also has broadened eligibility so that more people qualify for programs. Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, who requested the Congressional Research Service report, said it underscores a fundamental shift in welfare, moving away from a Band-Aid and toward a more permanent crutch. âNo longer should we measure compassion by how much money the government spends but by how many people we help to rise out of poverty,â the Alabama conservative said. âWelfare assistance should be seen as temporary whenever possible and the goal must be to help more of our fellow citizens attain gainful employment and financial independence.â Overall, welfare spending as measured by obligations has grown from $563 billion in fiscal 2008 to $746 billion in fiscal 2011, or a jump of 32 percent. The report from CRS -- a nonpartisan service that provides policy and legal analysis to members of Congress and staffers, regardless of party affiliation -- tells a complex story of American taxpayersâ generosity in supporting a varied social safety net, ranging from food stamps to support for low-income AIDS patients to child-care payments to direct cash going from taxpayers to the poor. By far the biggest item on the list is Medicaid, the federal-state health program for the poor, which at $296 billion in federal spending made up 40 percent of all low-income assistance in 2011. That total was up $82 billion from 2008. Beyond that, the next big program is food stamps, at $75 billion in 2011, or 10 percent of welfare spending. Itâs nearly twice the size it was in 2008 and accounts for a staggering 20 percent of the total welfare spending increase over those four years. Several programs to funnel cash to the poor also ranked high. Led by the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Supplemental Security Income and the Additional Child Tax Credit (CTC), direct cash aid accounts for about a fifth of all welfare. Mr. Sessionsâ staff on the Budget Committee calculated that states contributed another $283 billion to low-income assistance â chiefly through Medicaid. Combined, that means the federal and state governments spent $1.03 trillion on welfare programs. Richard Kogan, senior fellow at the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said that while the dollar amounts for low-income assistance are growing, they are still about the same slice of the budget pie when viewed over the long run. He said the costs may have spiked during the recession but are projected to drop back to regular trends once the economy recovers. âIn short, whatever one thinks about the merits or costs of these programs, other than Medicaid they are contributing nothing to long-run budgetary pressures,â he said. As for Medicaid, which has seen major spending increases, Mr. Kogan said even there it may be a savings. âMedicaid provides health care at a noticeably cheaper price than Medicare does, and both are cheaper than the cost of private-sector health insurance,â he said. âThe problem is not that the programs are badly designed â it is that the entire health care system in the U.S. is much more expensive than in any other advanced country.â Mr. Kogan said that, despite the increase, the cash assistance figure was âa shockingly small amount of moneyâ in the scheme of things. âVirtually all the rest is in the form of in-kind assistance: Medicaid, SNAP, WIC, housing vouchers, Pell grants, LIHEAP, and child care vouchers; or in the form of direct services, such as community health centers, Title 1 education, foster care, school lunch, and Head Start,â he said. Rather than straight transfers, those other programs provide support for services Congress has deemed worthy of funding. SNAP is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or what used to be called food stamps; LIHEAP is the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program; WIC is the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program; and Pell Grants provide assistance for college costs. The report comes as President Obama and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney are fighting over the size and scope of government assistance. Mr. Romney was damaged last month by caught-on-camera remarks in which he said 47 percent of Americans are dependent on government and see themselves as victims. In Tuesdayâs debate Mr. Romney blasted Mr. Obama for overseeing a 50 percent increase in the number of people on food stamps during his first term, which has risen from 32 million to 47 million. But the two men also share some agreement on safety-net programs. In the debate Mr. Romney said he wants to increase the Pell Grant program to help low-income children attend college. The CRS report looked at obligations for each program as its measure of spending. It included every program that had eligibility requirements that seemed designed chiefly to benefit those with lower incomes. The report looked at programs that had obligations of at least $100 million in a fiscal year, which meant some small-dollar welfare assistance wasnât included.