Debate expectations: Obama and Romney

Last week, there was a dearth of presidential election news. Mostly, it was campaign officials saying: "The other candidate is really good - Americans should expect a lot from their team." This manipulative lie is almost standard for politics - it's amazing that anyone even bothers reporting it as "news" anymore.

Previously, I posted what I hoped to hear from the debates. (Romney: Here are specifics of my plan. Obama: Here is how I will specifically keep trying to avoid gridlock if re-elected.)

Here is what I (unfortunately) expect from the candidates.

---

Romney: may give more specifics, but not enough to convince me. (Romney said 5 things at the RNC, Obama said 6 things at the DNC, now Romney will say 10 things which will seem like a lot, but there's still 99 other specifics that Romney will not go into.) The best Romney could do is mention a few more specifics and point to his website for more details. I think Romney will say more specifics (so "conservative media" can praise his forthcomingnesss), but not enough specifics to outline a presidency.

Romney will be "aggressive" and "on the attack" to try to "seem" presidential. Unfortunately, the best way to presidential is just to be yourself, when you're trying too hard, you will come across as "trying too hard" and will NOT come across as a real leader.

Romney may also try "sound bytes" that the media will quote glowingly. Unfortunately, these "zingers" will come across as stale and desperate. (At the RNC, Romney's attempt at a "zinger" - "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago" failed miserably. Romney is not hip like Reagan the actor, Romney can not pull of zingers.)

If Romney is aggressive and zinger-y, Fox News and Limbaugh will both claim that Romney won the debate. Undecided swing voters (like me) will not be convinced to vote for Romney.

---

Obama doesn't need to give specifics- we know that if we vote for him, we're going to get 4 more years like previous 4 years. At worst, they are "barely adequate" - at best, they are good, we just need to give more time to see the effects.

Obama is safe, polling-wise. So he won't be aggressive, he will be laid back and let Romney seem like an immature attack dog. Obama's number 1 priority is to NOT say a gaffe that could ruin his re-election, so we won't see "bold promises of bipartisanship" - like I am hoping.

Obama will also try for "sound-bytes" - but they will be emtpy oratory, designed to fire up his supporters. There won't be any substance to what he says, the more substance Obama provides, the more attackable he will be, so Obama will not provide more substance.

---

Regardless of what happens, I suspect both sides will take quotes from the opposing side, and use the quotes out of context. These "fake quotes" will sound good in the media, but won't convince voters who weren't convinced by previous fake quotes.

Regardless of what happens, conservative media will say Romney won (he did what he needed to do) and liberal media will say Obama won (he did what he need to do.)

If both candidates "meet my expectation" both candidates will lose. Romney will lose the election (failing to convince undecided voters like myself, but "meeting expectations" of his base.) Obama will also lose a chance for an effective second term. (Obama will "demonize Republicans" during the debates to fire up his base, when he needs to reach out to them. Now that he's winning, he can afford to show bipartisanship - but this is risky, and Obama will "play it safe" - since he doesn't want to risk losing re-election.)

Still, I'm hoping that one candidate will "exceed my expectations" for these debates.

Obama: What he should say in the debates

So, Romney has been an...unideal...candidate. Why am I still hoping he will have a plan? Because I'm still hoping that there's something better than the (probable) political gridlock that will happen if Obama gets re-elected.

I doubt Romney will reveal a masterpiece of a plan though, so Obama will get my vote by default.

If Obama wants to EARN my vote (and not just get it by default): Here's what he needs to say:

"I know that Americans are frustrated with the gridlock in Congress. And I will address that in my second term with these three specific plans:

I will invite a Republican Congressmen to lunch once a week. I won't push my agenda, in fact, I'd rather not just get to know a Republican socially without politics. There's so much animosity between Democrats and Republicans because the only time we see each other is when it's time to fight over a law that one side wants passed and the other side opposes. This has led to divide and demonization, and as president, I want to do my part to heal this partisan separation.

Second, I will set up a "buddy program" for a Democratic freshman congressman and a Republican freshman congressman. I would encourage them to see each other socially, before their senior party members crystalize their hatred. If a Texas House Representative can meet with a Califrnian Senator at the start in friendship, maybe there will be hope of a bipartisan connection that won't get jaded by experience.

And third, I will set up a website of "bipartisan issues" that citizens can visit and email their representatives that they shouldn't hate this idea just because it was brought up by the other side.

So that is what I will do personally, what I will do to encourage lawmakers, and what I will do to encourage citizens. Also, if there are other ideas to encourage bipartisanship, I will do everything I can as president to implement it."

---

Of course, Obama probably isn't going to "fire up his Democratic base to go to the polls" if he's not absolutely hating Republicans in his debate appearance. (Which is another problem against bipartisanship.)

But maybe Obama could mention a sentence that he has ideas on how he will change Washington from the inside in his second term, and flesh them out in his inaugeral address.

And maybe to help Bipartisanship, Obama could say in his inaugeral address that he "knows that 49% of America votes for Romney, so I will also cut legislature's salary for underperforming, and eliminate government waste like the electoral college, and other parts of Romney's plan that Republicans support."

Romney: What he should say in the debates

So I've complained about Romney's "lack of a plan." The debates are coming up, and I've said I'm looking for specifics. Here's what he needs to say to get my vote.

"I've said that I am going to use my business experience to reduce wasteful goverment expense. And here's an example: When I take over a failing company, I make sure to tie executive earnings to the company's success. I pledge to tie the salary of lawmakers to the country's success. I will cut the salary of House and Senate members in half, saving taxpayers millions of dollars over the next 4 years. I will tie percent increases to "normal rates" when the public opinion of Congress is over 50% approval - if it's under 50% approval, there will be more salary cuts. They will also get paid less if they don't pass a balanced budget.

Since I lead by example, I will also cut the president's salary in half.

Obviously, these salary cuts account for 0.01% of what we need to cut, for the other 99.99%, see my campaign website where I will list item by item, what I will cut.

---

I've also said that I will deregulate government. So, I will remove the "human element" from the electoral college - after the election, we'll have an "auto" electoral vote - eliminating "faithless voters" and saving time that humans waste on a formality.

Again, this is 0.01% of wasted government time we need to eliminate. On my website, there's the other 99.99% of what else I will eliminate as president.

---

I've also said I will close tax loopholes. Currently, there is a loophole for pet giraffes. Normally, you pay $50 in giraffe taxes, but if you tie the giraffe to a parking meter, you only need to pay $25 in giraffe taxes.

I will eliminate this loophole, and on my website there are more extensive examples of loopholes that I will close.

---

Okay, I don't know much about tax loopholes, so the giraffe example is a joke. (The first two examples are not though.) I doubt Romney will be able to explain his plan fully during a debate. It would be good if he had 3 big examples and then point citizens to a resource if we want to learn all the cuts/deregulations/loopholes that will be eliminated.

Unless I know Romney's plan, I will not be voting for him in November. At least with Obama, I know what I'm getting. I'm not going to vote for Romney and here during his inaugural address: "Surpise, I'm going to cut home mortgage interest rate deductions!"

So Romney, I'm hoping you have a plan.

Obama: Major weakness for re-election

I don't blame Obama for the economy. (He inherited the mess from W Bush.)

I don't blame Obama for the debt ceiling political gridlock. (It takes BOTH sides for gridlock to happen.)

But I DO blame Obama for STOPPING his attempts at bipartisanship.

His first year, Obama reached out for reasonable compromise to the minority Republicans. The Republicans (emotionally crazy because they're not used to being depowered) had secret meetings saying, "No matter what Obama proposes, we will all vote against it."

So his second year, Obama decided "I'm not going to be able to work with these crazy Republicans, I'm just going to ram through as much legislation as I can, before I lose the majority in 2010 elections."

After the 2010 elections, Obama STOPPED trying to work with Republicans. He said "Well, Republicans were going to block me when they had no power, so now that they have the House, they're going to block me even more. Oh well, I guess nothing is going to get done for two years."

---

When Romney was (the Republican) governor of Massachusetts, he was able to work with (Democratic majority) legislators. So, there is hope that if Romney becomes president, he'll be able to work with (Democratic majority) Senators.

But if Obama wins re-election, what is to prevent another 4 years of gridlock?

Obama seems to think that if he wins re-election, Republicans will magically stop obstructing him, since they will have learned that doesn't help anyone.

It's possible they'll start being reasonable, but I'm not going to "hope" that Republicans will "Change."

Unlike Romney, Obama doesn't really need a "plan" for what he'll do if he wins the election. We can expect more of the same Obama, and he will pay for what he wants to do by borrowing from China.

Unlike Romney, Obama DOES need to explain how he will lead a bi-partisan legislature. If his plan is to hope the other side will change - that's not a presidential plan.

Romney Ad: Talking to the Camera

So there have been (a few...okay, more than a few) showings of Romney's response to the "47%" video link.

Romney talks to the camera and says: "I care."

What a gawd-awful video!

Seriously, Romney has billions of dollars saved up, and this is the best they could do?

Nothing says "Fake televangelist" than earnestly TRYING to be sincere with all your might.

Here's a tip: Use testimonials. Find people whose job you saved, and get them to say "Thanks to Romney, I got a better job!" Or one of your Mormon congregation people to say "Romney prayed for me, and he didn't want anything in return."

Better yet, just admit that you DON'T care. (That will come off as more honest.)

Here's what you say:

---

I have had quotes taken out of context.

I like to fire people...who is doing a bad job. Because then I can give that job to someone who will work hard at it and grow the company and create two new jobs.

If you're an intentional slacker, yeah, I would like to fire you. And intentional slackers, go vote for the other guy.

But if you want quality co-workers and want a guy in the Oval Office who will make sure everyone on your team is pulling their weight, you should vote for me.

I don't care about the vote from poor people... who don't want to take advantage of the free market incentives I will provide.

If you want a bigger welfare check for free, vote for the other guy.

If you want a job to get off welfare, support yourself, and contribute to society, vote for me.

---

That would be MUCH more believable than the current ad, and it would let you move on to discuss actual specifics about your plan to make America better.

What Romey needs to do in the debates:

Everything. Romney needs to do everything. (You think with all the time/money he's spent, he would have done something for his campaign, but no, no he hasn't.)

Romney needs to:

• 1. Give us a plan
• 2. Convince us that it's the best option
• 3. Tell us how he'll get it passed (it's more likely if he wins that Republicans will keep control of the House and get control of the Senate, so this is less crucial than Obama)
• 4. Convince us that now is the time to "tighten our belts" (ie the economy won't be damaged when he implements his plan

It's a good thing Romney has three debates....

What Romney does NOT need to do

Go after Obama aggressively. Gingrich (whom I hate) recommends this. So does his base. But really, seeing more Obama attacks isn't going to convince me to vote for you Romney. You need to build yourself up, not tear Obama down. (The case against Obama has been made...many times...repeatedly.)

Be likeable/inspirational The harder you try, the more you come across as a fake televangelist. Obama doesn't try to be likeable/inspirational, that's why he succeeds and you don't. What you need Romney is to be yourself. Be practical. Explain your solutions.

Soon/Eventually: What Obama needs to do in the debates (and the major reason I haven't decided to vote Obama yet.)

Obama's Non-Plan

Obama's plan has "more stuff" than Romney. (The benefit of going after the RNC: If Romney says 5 things, Obama knows he just has to say 6 things!)

Also, there is an (unspoken) mechanism of how he's going to accomplish everything – just borrow money from China! So just like Romney has to persuade that what he's doing is right, Obama needs to persuade that what he wants to do is worth more debt.

• 1. Economy (Jobs, China, Small business – health care),
• 2. Energy
• 3. Education
• 4. Spending: (Tax cuts, Deficit, Military)

I. Jobs:

12 million new jobs should happen regardless.

Obama wants to “borrow money from China” to get 1 million new manufacturing jobs. This makes sense to build factories and stuff (since it helps the trade imbalance.) But, manufacture what? We'll never be competitive sewing clothes (we won't pay Americans $2/week to sew full-time.) or other low skilled work.

600,00 natural gas jobs. This sound reasonable.

And doubling exports by 2014. Exports of what?

II. Energy

Cutting net oil imports in half by 2020.

Reducing by 50% only sounds reasonable compared to Romney's reducing by 100%

But does this really solve the energy problem? If we make more gas in the USA, that doesn't make gas more cheap here than other places. (Since price of gas is global.)

What happened to alternative energy? I know Solyndra is a black eye, but does that mean Obama has "given up?"

III. Education:

Cut college tuition growth in half (by borrowing money from China.)

(And 2 million community college job training) Because there aren't enough unemployed people with college degrees.

100,000 math/science teachers. Because more crappy teachers will increase the quality of graduating students.

IV. Spending.

Deficit: Reduce it.

That's great, but how?

(This is the one thing Obama can't accomplish by borrowing money from China.)

Taxes: Steal from the rich, and redistribute to the poor. Except that stealing more from the rich is .001% of what we need.

So while there's "more stuff" from Obama than Romney, Obama still doesn't have a plan.

Saturday Night Live had an Obama parody, where Obama said the choice was "Either stick with someone who's barely adequate, or take your chances with the other guy."

Yeah, given two non-plans, I'm leaning towards Obama.

Romney's Non-Plan

At the Republican National Convention (and elsewhere), Romney proposed 4 things:

• 1. Economy (Jobs, China, Small business – health care),
• 2. Energy
• 3. Education
• 4. Spending: (Tax cuts, Deficit, Military)

Let's look at each.

1A. Economy: Jobs

Romney proposed to add 12 million jobs during his 4 years. Depending who you ask, “too hard” impossible (250,000 jobs per month) or “too easy” (that's how many were going to come back anyway.)

I don't think it's “too hard” to add 250K jobs per month. They disappeared for no good reason during the recession, they should come back for no good reason during a recovery.

So let's go with “too easy” - if the economy recovers from Obama's job stimulus work done already, we'll get 12 million jobs.

So Romney's "plan" is (basically): “I will do nothing and let the economy recover on its own.” (Which goes along with his general governemtn/free market philosophy.)

If this is Romney's “plan” for the economy, he needs to convince me that the economy really can recover on its own (ie, admit that Obama has done a good enough job that the economy is out of danger) and that now is the “time” to stop splurging and tighten our belts.

1B. China

Romney will “call China a currency manipulator.” I'm not really sure what currency manipulation is – it seems like if a toy dog costs 1 USD, but it costs 2 (RSD), it just means that Chinese people who are making 50K (RSD) aren't middle class, they're actually very lower class 25K (USD).

Romney says he will “Get tough on China.” He's got a competitive approach to foreign relations, so he needs to show why that's appropriate. It seems to me, China is an economic ally – they're giving us money at low interest – that's a nice thing to do. We don't hate a credit cards that gives us a low APR, do we?

1C Small business – health-care

He will help small businesses by repealing Obamacare. I don't really see the link. It's not as if Obamacare is THE major problem with small businesses. Okay, things will get more expensive, but it's only slightly so. Romney needs to prove that the expense of mandatory healthcare is NOT worth the benefits of getting everyone healthcare.

2. Energy:

Stop America from importing oil from the Middle East by 2020. So basically, all of our gas is going to come from America, Canada, and Mexico. Is there really that much oil here? I don't think it's that easy (even with off-shore drilling).

Romney needs to make the case that A) we have that much oil, and B) if we eliminate regulations, it will make gas cheap for everyone, which will C) springboard the economy to a recovery.

I'm not sure any of those are reasonable assumptions. (Even if we go back to coal and increase nuclear – not enough energy. Especially without renewable energy subsidies, and if he deregulates energy efficiency, thus ending any incentive to develop technology that makes more use out of less resources.)

3. Education

Improve American competitiveness by A) giving parents a “choice” between public/private and B) stopping teacher unions? That's what's stopping kids from getting smarter? How about lack of motivation for students(ie, no jobs even if you get a high school diploma). There's a lot more wrong with education, and your “plan” needs to address it.

4. Spending. (Tax cuts, Deficit, Military)

Tax cuts are good. Tax cuts right now? Unless you've got a plan (programs to cut government spending and alternative sources of revenue) Cutting taxes sounds popular, but may not be the smart thing to do.

Obama said Romney's only solution is “Tax cut.” Actually, it's “tax cut” and “let the free market work.” Things are more complex than that, and Romney needs to address it and convince me of his plan.

Cutting the deficit is good. Cutting the deficit right now? Might not be so good. Romney needs to show the economy can handle it (ie, it has sufficiently recovered, which sounds like “Obama praise” to me.)

The one specific part of his plan that Romney does have is that he will NOT cut the military. Why? You spend a lot when there's a war. Pulling out of Afghanistan means we don't need to spend as much. Do we really need another Cold War, especially when there doesn't seem to be an opponent that we're trying to bankrupt?

So, Romney's plan is anything but.

Romney: Income Tax Release: I don't care.

Today, Romney released his 2011 income taxes.

Of course, he was unemployed in 2011, and he knew he was going to run in 2012, so he must have sterilized these 2011 returns to prep.

If Romney wants to win my trust, he should release his income taxes from say, 2002. His 2006 taxes would be just as sterile (since he had to know he'd run in 2008) but 2002? That's where we'd find the real/honest Mitt Romney and how he really files his taxes.

I get that Romney probably exploited a bunch of tax loopholes - which is what makes him most qualified to close them.

I do have a lingering concern that Romney...stretched... the law to pay less taxes in 2002. But if he didn't out and out cheat/lie, that'd be enough for me.

I doubt Romney out and out cheated/lied- he's just not releasing his 2002 returns because he wants to talk about something else.

But what else is he talking about? Not his actual plan for what he'll do when he's president - at least not yet.

Obama: Univision : Biggest lesson

Obama - His Univision minuses

I voted for Obama in 2008, but I'm (still) hoping for a better candidate in 2012.

After Romney's Univision appearance, Obama got interviewed. He said he realized "You can't change Washington from the inside."

So why are you running for President? You admit you can't change the political gridlock, so like Eastwood (kinda) said: "Maybe it's time to step aside and give someone else a shot?"

When asked why Obama said he didn't pass immigration reform like he promised, Obama admitted, "Yeah, that's a regret. But it's not for lack of trying, or lack of desire."

I don't blame Obama for the economy. But I DO blame him for lack of trying and lack of desire. He decided "I can't change Washington from the inside." so he's not trying, and he doesn't want to change Washington anymore.

I voted for him because he envisioned a bipartisan presidential term, and now Obama (and Romney too) don't mention bipartisanship in their convention acceptance speech.

I'll revisit this critique in a future "Why I haven't decided for Obama" post. It's probably the one issue he (most) needs to address to get my vote.

EditInitial post said "Telemundo" but I changed it because it was channel Univision.

Also, Democratic bloggers claim that the quote (like previous mudslingers) is just taken out of context.

Obama really said: "You can't change Washington from the inside (that's why voters in Virginia/Florida need to turn out and support candidates.)

But the context doesn't alter my perception on this quote. Obama admitted that this was something he "learned" - ie, it's a change from his previous position in 2008:

2008 Obama: I will change Washington from the outside. If voters in Virginia/Florida need to turn out and support me, I will transform Washington!

2010 Obama: You can't change Washington from the inside. So voters in Virginia need to turn out and vote, because I can't transform Washington by myself.

So Obama is admitting: I have no plan to change Washington - I'm out of ideas - I need voters to change Congress for me.

That's why this quote bothers me. (Media liked "You didn't build that" and "I like to fire people" - because those are big and sexy. This problem is subtle, so the media doesn't care as much, but discerning swing voters are picking up on what the media does not.)

Edit again An explanation/defense is that "You can't change Washington from the inside" is a cliche, uttered thoughtlessly by everyone (even Romney, in 2008 primary debates.)

Maybe Obama just rehashed what he's accustomed to saying in a campaign, not realizing that he's now inside Washington.

Unfortunately, Obama doubled down, saying "I can't change Washington inside by myself. I need voters outside Washington to support me.

This is the problem. I'll talk about it in "What Obama needs to do in the debates.

Romney: 100%, Libya and Healthcare

Romney - waffle leader

I was okay with Romney admitting that his strategy to win only 53% of the vote.

His (immediate) response was to double down: "What I said is true, just inelegantly stated." That's the sort of truth talk that wins over smart independents (such as moi) whom he wants to get him over 50%.

But (after criticisms) he changed his response so it's now: "Actually, I am for 100% of America."

That's one way to prevent (more) of the 45% of the "auto-Romney voters" from evaporating. But now he just looks like a waffler to the intellegent independents.

I'm beginning to suspect that the reason he hasn't unveiled specifics of his plan is because he's waiting for last minute polls to tell him what he needs to say to win. It doesn't matter what he actually believes in, or what he'll actually do when elected. It's like his startegy is "Tell me what you want to say, and I will say it to be your leader."

Which, ironically, is not what I think a leader should say.

Libya: Doubling down, and then not (again.)

So after the Libya tragedy, Romney's (immediate) response was "I'm disappointed that the Obama administration is apologizing." And then it turned out that Romney spoke before/after he knew what was really going on.

And then he "doubled-down" the next day: "Yes, I stand by my remarks, maybe the apology didn't come directly from Obama's mouth, but his officials are channeling Obama policy and that policy is "America will apologize."

And then the next, next day (after criticisms) he changed his response to: "Yeah, Libya was a tragedy."

Health care

After the primaries were (mostly over), Romney said: "I will repeal Obama care, as my first priority act in office."

During the RNC, Romney said "Amongst the things I will do to help small business is repeal Obamacare." (Literally, it's not a "headline" in his 5 talking points, it's a subheading under "help businesses.")

After the Democratic convention (and polls came in saying what parts people liked) Romney said: "Well, I wouldn't repeal ALL of Obamacare, I'll keep the parts that help people with pre-existing conditions."

And then at yesterday's Telemundo interview he said: "Obama says that my Romneycare plan from Massachusetts is the grandfather of Obamacare. It's not a compliment, but I'll take it."

Soooo, now Romney thinks his association with Obamacare is a good thing?

Call me crazy, but I want to know where a candidate stands on an issue like "healthcare" before I vote for him.

Romney 47% Video Leak: Why no effect on me

(Not) Continued

Today, I was going to talk about what Obama and Romney needed to do to earn my (undecided) vote. But since yesterday, so many articles have reported "candid Romney" saying he doesn't care about the poor - and how that video "leak" is a game-changer for undecideds (like me).

As a "persuadable", let me tell you that the "gaffe" does not affect me. And here's why:

Immunity to negative campaigning

Evidently, negative campaign ads work. I guess that's how 90% of America has already decided. But us remaining 10% won't become decided when we see another negative campaign ad, message or gaffe.

---

Romney: I like to fire people (when they don't do a good job)

Obama: If you have a small business, you didn't build that (street that connects you to your clients.)

---

Us "Deciding 10%" haven't been swayed by those "previous gaffes", and we're not swayed by this one either.

---

Romney: I don't want the votes of poor people (who are too lazy to work for the benefits offered by my presidency which will reward hard workers.)

---

Nothing new

If anything, the gaffe will reinforce people who've already decided on both sides.

---

Republican: I'm so glad I'm going to vote for Romney, he really does want to reward hard workers!

Democrat: First Ryan pushes grannies off cliffs, now Romney admits he doesn't care about the poor!

---

As for undecideds like me, we already know that Romney (and Obama) are going for a 51% win. It's the smart thing to do - that's why Obama isn't campaigning in Texas, and Romney isn't campaigning in Illinois.

You might say: But this isn't geographic discrimination, this is class discrimination!

Which brings me to:

The real gaffe

The real gaffe is Romney's manipulation - telling people numbers that they want to hear/what is most helpful to Romney. (Like "23 million" unemployed at the RNC, when it's like 13 million unemployed, and 10 million "underemployed.)

The "hidden video" wouldn't be notable at all if Romney said: "I don't care about the 13% who don't pay income taxes, because my tax cuts aren't going to help them."

Instead, Romney said "47% are victims." He (probably) said this to a wealthy (potential) donor who said "I'm not going to give you money unless you've got 75% support!" So Romney had to manipulate the donor and say "I'm not going to get 75% of the vote, because 47% will automatically vote for Obama, because they're not as smart/hard-working as you are!"

Obama uses "fake numbers" as convenient too. And I'm sure he tells wealthy donors what they want to hear to. ("Why don't I get more votes in Texas? Well, those Texans like their guns too much.") And actually, Obama has had his "manipulations unknowingly recorded" gaffe in this election already. (Telling the Russian president "I'll have more flexibility after the election.")

Conclusion

So I'm actually glad that both Romney and Obama have had their "unknown recorded" gaffes - that's what they get for trying to manipulate people instead of just being honest.

Some day, there will be a candidate who has a good plan, and does NOT need to manipulate people. That day is NOT during this current election. Until that day comes, like most undecideds, I'm going to vote for the candidate who has the better plan. (Which will hopefully come out during the debates.)

My case against Romney:

With the economy, Obama left an opening for a good Republican candidate to become president. At first, Romney might have been that candidate. He has a good economic background, and (unlike Ross Perot) he also has governing experience in the executive branch.

The initial case against Romney wasn't convincing. "He's a millionaire who only wants to help other millionairs" is as much an obvious distortion as Obama's portrayal as a socialist who steals from the rich.

And his "gaffes" on his foreign trip? You have a pack of reporters following you for 24hrs, who are waiting for the slightest misstep - and we'll see how you do. If the only mistake I made was saying "London could use more security" - I'd think I was doing pretty well.

My case against Romney is his (conscious?) strategy of "ambiguity."

When he started, Romney knew that 60% of America disliked Obama. So if the 45% of Republican voters supported him (hey, they'd vote for any Republican presidential candidate), and over half the undecideds voted against Obama - he could win the election without having to say or do anything.

So Romney played conservative - if he doesn't say or do anything - there won't be anything said or done that would make him lose the election.

The problem is that just because 60% of America dislikes Obama, that doesn't mean that 60% will automatically vote for Romney.

Okay, some undecideds are that undiscerning, but not most of us. (At least, I hope so.) When we "decide" it's because we've thought things through.

And those of us who think things through don't like it when you try to manipulate us with "ambiguity."

Ultimiately, the reason I'm leaning away from Romney is that Obama is good (not great) and Romney is unknown. I would be surprised if/when Romney (finally) reveals his plan at the debates that it's going to be so obviously awesome that it will convince me to vote for him in a month.

If Romney's plan was that good, he would have unveiled it much earlier. Most likely, Romney's plan is going to be mixed. If Romney had revealed it (months) earlier, he could have learned what the voters thought of it, and tweaked it before the debates.

So Romney's plan had better be pretty darn good when it is finally unveiled - if it's a "rough draft" at the debates, my current "leaning towards Obama" will become a "vote yes for Obama."

Next time: What Obama and Romney need to do to earn my vote

My case against Obama

Am I better of than 4 years ago?

Slightly. In 2008, everyone (including me) was scared about losing our jobs and the economy crashing into a Depression. In 2012, I'm less scared about losing my job (the current concern has improved from: "How quickly are jobs disappearing?" and the is now matured to:"How slowly are jobs coming back?" ) And even if we go over the "fiscal cliff" - we're more likely to go into a Recession than a Depression.

My case against Obama is that he was good, not great. And this is at a time when we needed "excellent."

Ideally, you want things "good, quick, and cheap." Practically, you get to pick two of the three.

Obama's recovery wasn't "cheap" - so it should have been "good and quick." The recovery is anemic and taking longer than execpected.

Obama's second term

I think Obama knew in 2008 that the recovery wasn't going to be complete in 2012. I think he (famously) said "If we're not recovered by 2012, I should be a one-term president." - not because he thought the recovery would be done by 2012, but because Obama didn't WANT a second term (at least back then), but he knew showing (fake) confidence in the recovery would get others to believe in the recovery as well, thus increasing consumer confidence.

I hate that kind of political manipulation - and it serves Obama right that it's coming back to bite him.

I also think that Obama didn't really have an 8 year plan - he just had a 4 year plan to stop the crisis, and now that it's 2012, he doesn't have a plan anymore, beyond doing more of what he's been doing (which may not be what the economy needs right now.)

Finally, I don't think that Obama WANTS a second term to fix the economy in the future. He WANTS a second term so that his "accomplishments" in the first term aren't automatically undone by the next president. While Obama's campaign slogan is "forward" - he hasn't really shown what he wants to do that will bring us forward.

Conclusion

Romney's big question from the 2012 RNC ("Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?) was lifted from Reagan's campaign against Carter. It worked for Reagan because Carter's policies had caused the stagflationary economy they were facing.

We are (slightly) better off over Obama from 4 years ago. A better question at the RNC would have been "Has Obama got you where you want to be in 4 years? If not, why give him another 4?"

"Who am I?" and "Why this blog?"

Who am I?

I am an undecided swing voter. From Florida. And I identify myself as "middle-class." (So supposedly, both Obama and Romney will are good for me if either wins the election :)

Why this blog?

I read an article that said 45% had already decided they'd re-elect Obama. Another 45% had decided to vote for Romney. So that meant that 10% of America is going to decide this election (and if doomsdayers are to be believed - the fate of the world.)

Of that 10%, maybe 20% live in a swing state, so (evidently) I'm in the 2% that REALLY matter. And of that 2% how many blog? (Most political bloggers are decidedly biased Democrat or Republican - it's their strong passions that make them want to blog. How many "strongly passionate" undecideds are there?)

So political types should probably care what someone like me thinks about this election - evidently they're spending millions on polls, and more millions on advertising.... So they could look at fake numbers, or they could just read my blog for an in-depth "sampling" of their target audience.

I do doubt if any "senior campaign startegists" will ever read my blog though. Mostly I'm doing this to work out my own thoughts. (And to archive it, so I can look back when I'm 65 and say, "I actually believed that when I was younger?")

I can't really be an undecided swing voter, right?

Technically, you could say my (historical) preferences lean towards Republican/small government. At the start of 2012, I was leaning more towards Romney, although I am currently leaning towards re-electing Obama. But we'll see what happens in the debates. (Seriously, why/how has 90% of the country already decided who to vote for, when the debates haven't happened yet?)

I grew up with Reagan, and I suppose he shaped my values. (Reinforced when Clinton said, "The era of big government is over.") I voted for Clinton over Dole, because why change when things are going well? I voted for Bush over Gore, because of my (traditional) Republican leanings, and it seemed like a governor is better qualified that a vice-president. (Seriously, what did the VP do for 8 years?)

I voted AGAINST Bush in 2004, not because I liked Kerry, but because I HATED Bush. (Seriously, we can't afford it, but let's give free drugs to seniors just to keep the incumbent in power? And I hated "Operation Enudring Freedom" before "hating it" became mainstream.)

In 2008, I voted for Obama, because while I admired McCain's courage and fighting spirit, I thought Obama's intellectual capacity was more...presidential.

I didn't follow the start of the 2012 Republican primaries that closely. (It started with like 20 candidates.) As the field narrowed, I thought Ron Paul had some crazy ideas (some were "good crazy", but enough were "crazy crazy" ideas.) I hated Newt Gingrich for attacking Clinton's personal failings for political gain. Ultimately, I preferred Romney's "economy" message over Santorum's "Christian Values" message.

In the 2012 general election, I was initially leaning towards Romney. I don't believe Obama is a secret Muslim socialist who failed on the economy. Mostly, I think he did his job adequately (we didn't plunge into a second Great Depression) - but I think Obama didn't really have a plan to do things differently for the next 4 years.

I'm kind of leaning back towards Obama, because Romney doesn't seem to have a concrete plan either. Romney said something like "If you don't think Obama did a good job, that means you should vote for me." Umm, no, Mr. Romney, I will vote for you when you convince me that you'll do a better job than Obama. I'm not going to vote Obama out and put someone who will do (maybe) a worse job in his place.

Obama isn't great, but Romney hasn't convinced me that you'll do better. Maybe that'll change during the debates, but until then, I'm leaning towards Obama.