We Built It Blog by Larry Jacob

As the election results sink in, I have some additional thoughts:

1.  During the campaign, polls repeatedly gave Mr. Obama an edge over Mr. Romney for “likeability.”  It’s true that Mr. Obama has a more friendly, outgoing, charming personality, but does that make him a better President?  Probably not, but in any walk of life, people who are “likeable” generally have an advantage over those who are not.  I compare the election to a situation where I might need a surgeon to perform a complicated and serious operation on me.  Dr. A is nice, charming, has a great bedside manner but mediocre surgical skills.  Dr. B is a superior surgeon but is a real SOB.  I would choose the SOB every time and then, if I want, I can celebrate my recovery by having drinks with the nice doctor.  In my mind, the electorate chose the nice doctor.

2.  Now that Mr. Obama has won, it’s time for the Administration to end the obfuscation and tell the American public the truth about the Libya fiasco.  We deserve it.

3.  It’s time for both the Dems and GOP to end their partisanship and work together for the good of the country.  We have a “fiscal cliff” looming on January 1, and several other serious issues to address.

4.  A word to Obama supporters in your jubilation over his re-election.  Be careful what you wish for.  He won, but now he has the sole responsibility to fix the economy, a task which he was not able to accomplish in his first term.  The economy was and is the most serious issue, and, unlike his opponent, there is nothing in his background that indicates he has the ability to fix it.  Dems will not be able to blame failure on George Bush in 2016.

Predictions

1.  The Congress and the President will work together to fashion some sort of compromise to avoid the “fiscal cliff,” but only because they have to.  The compromise will, however, result in fewer spending cuts than needed.  In addition, as I explained in one of my previous blogs, most of us, including many in the so-called middle class, will somehow end up paying more taxes.   We always do.

2.  I doubt that the American public will ever learn the whole truth about Libya, especially the part about who ordered the cover-up.  To me, the cover-up was as bad as the incident, itself, if not worse.

3.  I am pessimistic about Mr. Obama’s ability to improve the economy substantially.  I see unemployment remaining unacceptably high and the debt growing at a similar rate.  I see businesses remaining reluctant to make capital investments, spend money and hire workers. This is based on his political philosophy and his track record.  I foresee a real chance of another recession.

First of all, congratulations to Barack Obama and the Democrats.  They ran the superior race, and they won fair and square.  The voters have spoken, and those who voted for Mr. Romney must accept the decision and move on.   If you didn’t vote, shame on you, but that is another topic for discussion on another day.  The strength of America is that there will be no rioting, no revolution, no army takeover.  The losers will accept the results, analyze why they lost, and try to do better next time.

That brings me to the subject of this blog.  Why did Mr. Obama win, and, conversely, why did Mr. Romney lose?  Although the election was very close in terms of the total popular vote, 51% – 49%,  I believe some clear trends emerged, which bode well for the Dems and not so well for the GOP.

Why Obama Won

1.   Superior campaign staff with a better strategy.  This is, perhaps, the most important reason and permeates some of the other reasons as well.

2.   Support of the media, sometimes overt, sometimes more subtle.  This includes the mainstream press, entertainers, television and radio.  It is no secret that most members of the media are more liberal than the electorate as a whole, and Mr. Obama has always been a favorite of theirs. Certain negatives were downplayed, such as “fast and furious” and the Libya attack.

3.  Better organized grassroots effort, particularly in the “swing” states. Also known as the “ground game,” the Dems were able to start organizing early because Mr. Obama did not have any primary opposition.  The payoff was a very high turnout among their target groups – minorities, young people and Hispanics.

4.  Successful courting of Hispanics and women, particularly single women.  Hispanics are the fastest growing segment of the population, and no doubt they swung the results in FL, CO, NV and NM.  The “war on women” issue was more effective on single women.  Incidentally, there are many theories why single women favor the Dems and married women favor the GOP regardless of other factors, but no one seems to know for sure.  These groups, combined with Mr. Obama’s “natural ” supporters, African Americans and young people formed a winning coalition.

Why Romney Lost

1.   Inferior campaign strategy.  Again this one permeates all the other reasons listed below.

2.   VP choice.  Mr. Ryan, though a fine Congressman and an up-and-comer in the party, added little to the ticket’s election chances.  He did not appeal to moderates and independents, and he did not even deliver his home state (Wisconsin).  Marco Rubio would have delivered FL and energized the Hispanic vote for the GOP in other states as well.

3.  Failure to criticize Mr. Obama’s handling of the Libya attack.  Mr. Romney has his chance during the 3rd debate, and he blew it.  He could have couched his criticism in such a way as to not appear divisive, such as pointing out Mr. Obama’s lack of leadership and failure to be honest with the American people.

4.  Failure to recognize the rising influence of the Hispanic vote.  This ties in to his VP choice and his hard stance on immigration.

5.  Failure to explain his plan for reorganizing the auto industry adequately.  The Dems made it seem as though he wanted to destroy it, which was not the case.  In reality his plan of bankruptcy and reorganization was a reasonable one given the inherent  inefficiencies in the industry.  This issue hurt him severely in Ohio, a state he had to win.

6.  Super Storm Sandy blunted his momentum.  Mr. Obama was able to appear “Presidential” in a crisis.  Furthermore, the “hug” from Chris Christie reminded me of the old adage “a picture is worth a thousand words.”

7.  Much of the electorate preceived Mr. Obama as more “likeable,” which may have influenced some votes.

8.  He stopped attacking in the last few days, perceiving he was ahead, and tried to “run out the clock.”

Conclusion and Prediction

The makeup of the electorate is changing.  The number of minorities, Hispanics, women and young people are increasing.  If Republicans want to bounce back in 2016 it will be incumbent on them to recognize these shifts and adapt to them.  Undoubtedly, they will have to soften their positions on issues that appeal to those groups and nominate moderate candidates that have broad-based appeal.  The “base,” which has traditionally controlled the Party, will have to decide if it wants to stay true to their beliefs and lose national elections or become more moderate and possibly win.  I believe they are shrewd enough to adapt enough to compete nationally.

In watching the news about the aftermath of Storm Sandy, I am shocked and horrified. at the sheer devastation and the lack of progress  in restoration after one week.  I’m not talking about physically rebuilding homes and businesses.  I know that will take months.  I’m talking about providing basic services, like shelter, food and water.  I watch the news and I say to myself: “Is this America or some third world country?”

I see women sobbing uncontrollably at the hopelessness of their situation, babies without food and shelter wrapped in blankets and layers of clothing to try to keep warm, and 90 year olds,who we know are particularly vulnerable, without food and shelter.  Plus, 30 degree temperatures and another storm on the way.  Would you want your kids, grandkids, mother, or grandmother to be in this situation?  I think not. I am irate and so should you be.

Where is Mr. Obama’s “Big Government” when we really need it?  Where is Mr. Obama, himself, for that matter?  Where is FEMA?  Where are Jesse Jackson, “Reverend Al” (Sharpton), George Clooney, Barbra Streisand, and all the other Hollywood liberals when we really need them to support Americans in need?  The people suffering in NY and NJ include all socio-economic groups – rich, middle class, and poor, black, white and hispanic.  Sandy was an equal opportunity destroyer.

The answers to my rhetorical questions are obvious.  Mr. Obama, after a brief “photo op” with Chris Christie, is back doing what he does best: campaigning.  NY and NJ are not “swing states, so he doesn’t really care about them.  Pardon me, but I understood that the President  is supposed to be the President of all the people.  And, in 2008 didn’t Mr. Obama run on a platform of bringing us all together?

FEMA is doing what it does best – little or nothing.  And the celebrities, who were so quick to act in response to other disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina, Haiti’s earthquake and Africa’s various disasters, are either silent or busy campaigning for their guy – President Obama.  The order of the day is to maintain a low profile, hoping to keep a lid on it until after the election so as not to hurt Mr. Obama’s re-election chances.  (If this strategy sounds familiar, see Libya.)

A couple of things to keep in mind amid all the fingerpointing.

(1)   Sandy was not a surprise, like an earthquake.  FEMA and the utilities should have been better prepared.  Obviously, they underestimated the storm.

(2)   The person in charge has the ultimate responsibility and authority.  This is true in life, in business and in politics.  He or she takes the credit when things go right and the blame when things go wrong.  That’s what leadership is all about.  President Truman had it right when he said “The buck stops here.”  Although there is plenty of blame to go around, President Obama, as the ultimate boss, must take a lion’s share of it.  (After all, he was quick to take the credit for killing Bin Laden, wasn’t he?)

(3)  Once all parties blew the preparation part, they could have at least redeemed themselves with a quicker response, but they have not.  How hard would it have been to fly in generators, to supply power to homes, businesses and gas stations, water to drink, food to eat, etc.  Isn’t there a disaster recovery plan that can be enacted?

The bottom line is America ‘s commander-in-chief has, once again, failed the American people.  For two days after Sandy he displayed leadership, but then he reverted to his normal pattern of behavior. This is not an isolated case; it has been a four-year pattern.   For four years he has failed us economically, socially, militarily and, now, morally. He has failed to respond to a series of “3 am calls” appropriately.

To paraphrase one of Mr. Obama’s campaign slogans: Give me a second chance, and I will do better.  Americans pride themselves on giving people second chances, but not this time!  Vote for Mr. Romney.  Your kids and grandkids will thank you.

At long last, we come to the end of the 2012 campaign.  After all the speeches, all the debates, all the PAC ads, all the exaggerations and, yes, the deceptions, the voters will finally have their say.  On Tuesday we get to exercise our constitutional right and pick our next President.

This election will be a pivotal one in the country’s history.  When you strip away all the rhetoric and political obfuscation the election comes down to a basic choice.  Voters will be choosing between two substantially different ideologies.  Do we want to continue the current trend toward a big government society similar to those in Western Europe or do we want one that stresses the traditional American values of individualism and free enterprise.

This election is the closest in memory.  As I write this on November 4, the election is still in a virtual dead heat and extremely difficult to forecast.   Complicating matters further is the plethora of polls, some of which are contradictory.

At the present time, the consensus is that the popular vote, for what it’s worth, is dead even – 47.4% for Mr. Obama and 47.2% for Mr. Romney.  Mr. Obama has a “safe” lead in states totaling 237 electoral votes, and Mr. Romney has a “safe” lead in states totaling 191.  There are nine states totaling 110 electoral votes that are too close to call.  They are: Colorado (9 electoral votes), Florida (29), Iowa (6), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), North Carolina (15), Ohio (18), Virginia (13), and Wisconsin (10).  270 electoral votes are needed to win.  Most pollsters are opining that Mr. Obama will win enough of these nine battleground states to put him over the top.  This appears to be based on (1)  the polls indicating he has slim margins in most of them, although within the margin for error, (2) a lead in the “safe” states’ electoral vote count, and (3) Storm Sandy appears to have blunted much of Mr. Romney’s recent momentum.

Prediction

I do not concur with that analysis completely.  I do agree that Sandy has blunted Mr. Romney’s recent momentum as it has afforded Mr. Obama the opportunity to appear “presidential” in dealing with the aftermath.  But, I think Mr. Romney will win Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia with a total of 84 electoral votes, enough of the battleground states to win the election.    This is based on the fact that even though Mr. Obama has a slight lead in those states, according to the consensus of polls his plurality is 48% or less, and historically, undecided voters have voted predominantly for the challenger in almost every Presidential election.  These five states will give Mr. Romney 275 electoral votes.

Because of the extremely slim margins anticipated in so many states, it is highly likely that there will be recounts and, perhaps, even court challenges in a few states.  Thus, the official result may be delayed.  But, when all is said and done, I predict Mitt Romney will become the 45th President of the United States.

Sandy was one of the most devastating storms ever to hit the East Coast.  Sandy’s impact on the Tri-State area, the death and devastation, was and is horrific  Pictures of Long Beach, Oceanside and Fire Island, to name a few examples, look like pictures of Haiti after an earthquake or bombed out cities from WWII.  Whole communities are gone.  People, some of whom are infants, the very aged and infirmed, are homeless, and without food, shelter, heat and all the other basics we take for granted until they’re no longer there.

As was the case with hurricane Katrina, the performance of FEMA and local utility companies, has been spotty, especially since the storm was well-publicized.  They should have prepared better, but apparently they underestimated the storm and overestimated their ability to respond to it.

Some of the individual stories are absolutely heart-wrenching

1.    Flood waters literally ripped two toddlers from their mother’s arms and swept them away.

2.     Approximately 100 homes in Breezy Point, NY were burned to the ground by wind-swept flames because firemen could not reach them .

3.       The death count is still rising; the value of property lost is incalculable.

4.    To make matters worse, many people cannot get gas for their cars and generators.  This is not due to a shortage of gas, but because (1) many gas stations have no power to run their pumps; (2) a couple of refineries were damaged by the storm; and (3)  tankers full of oil are sitting offshore unable to dock because of the devastation to ports.  The result is people having to wait in gas lines for hours to fill up, a scene reminiscent of the 1970s.  Why did it take Governor Cuomo until Friday to institute odd-even gas rationing?  It worked in the 1970s.  It was working in NJ?  Was it because Governor Christie thought of it first, and he didn’t want to be seen as copying his lead?  I hope not.

In the midst of all this, politicians, FEMA and the utilities have been seen on television congratulating themselves on a job well done.  Well, news flash!  The rescue, recovery and rebuilding, not just of property but also of lives, is not done.  It is just beginning.

Nearly two weeks after the storm insufficient progress has been made.  Most of the attention of the media, politicians and relief agencies has been focused on the Jersey Shore and Manhattan.  Well, we pay taxes too!  We deserve better!

The UN -affiliated Organization for Society and Cooperation in Europe (“OSCE”) has been invited to monitor the US Presidential election.  The invitation was issued by the NAACP, the ACLU and other far left groups.

The avowed purpose is to prevent voter suppression and disenfranchisement of minorities and the poor.  One of the primary targets of these far left groups is what they view to be the arbitrary and improper application of voter ID laws.  I am all for voter equality and fair elections, but I think it is outrageous that the US has to be subjected to having its elections monitored by a foreign entity, particularly one whose members come from countries such as Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, which are not exactly known for their free and open elections.  I was happy to see the Texas Attorney General speak out strongly against these observers.

The far left liberals’ request for monitoring by OSCE is a thinly veiled attempt to combat some states’ voter ID laws, which they view as a means of suppressing voting by minorities and the poor.  Hopefully, OSCE will seek out any and all voting irregularities (such as Black Panther voter intimidation), but I am dubious about that.  It is worth denoting that Georgia and Indiana have had voter ID laws in place for several years.  During that time, there has been no evidence of voter supression.  In fact,  the turnout of African American and Hispanic voters in those states has risen more substantially, than that for the nation as a whole.  Moreover, Mexico, which we Americans like to view as a backward nation, has required voters to present comprehensive identification since 2000.  They require a photo ID, a signature and a thumbprint.  The ID includes a picture with a hologram covering it, a magnetic strip and a serial number.  Man, would the ACLU squawk about that!  At the end of the day, it’s not about suppression of votes; it’s about suppression of fraud.  The idea is to permit everyone to vote who is qualified to do so, but only once, and no dead people, felons, illegal aliens or other unqualifieds.

Conclusion and Prediction

To be sure, US Presidential elections have not been without controversy.  For example, there was the “hanging chad” controversy in Florida in 2000, which cast doubt on the result of not only Florida but the entire election.  To this day, many Democrats remain convinced that Mr. Gore won that election.  But, news flash to the rest of the world: the US is a democracy with a constitution, which provides for an orderly resolution of voting controversies and irregulaties through various legal means, such as the individual states, the courts and the Congress.  And it works just fine!  Even though Mr. Gore thought he had won the 2000 election, he didn’t raise an army and take over the government, as might have been the case in some countries.  Both he and the nation accepted the results and moved on.

In an election this close, it is likely that there will be controversial and challenged results in one or more states. If so, do we really want the UN involved in resolving it, in determining the next President of the United States?

While researching my blogs I have repeatedly observed that there is a great divide in America.  Actually, there is more than one.  At the risk of oversimplying matters, we have deep divisions between rich and poor, white and African American and East Coast-West Coast versus Middle America.  I don’t think that’s healthy.  I find it very disturbing, and so should you regardless of your political preference.  Worse yet,  I believe these divides have been accentuating in recent years as a result of the Great Recession and other reasons.  For purposes of this blog, however, I will focus on the white-African American Political Divide and the impact on the current Presidential election.

In the past few decades, Democratic Presidential nominees have netted 41% – 43% of white voters fairly consistently whether they won or lost.  For example, in 2000 Al Gore lost in a virtual dead heat with 42% of the white vote and 90% of the black vote.  Kerry netted 41% of the black vote in 2004; Mr. Obama, by contrast, won 43% in 2008, the same as Clinton had in 1996.  So, 41% – 43% seems to be the standard range.  This cycle, Mr.  Obama has been running at 40%.  At first glance one might say this would doom him despite his strong showing among Latinos and 90%+ black vote.  But, he’s running better among whites in Ohio where he is getting credit among working class whites for having “saved” the auto industry, and they account for his 50% – 46% lead in that state.

Conclusion and Prediction

The way things are going right now, the other seven battleground states will net out more or less indecisively.  In that event, those relatively few working class whites in Ohio may decide the whole election.  I predict that due to the extreme closeness of the election the losing side will be very, very unhappy and very vocal about it, particularly if the loser receives more of the popular vote.  The nuances of the Electoral College System versus the popular vote may be ignored by some people in their zeal to seek “justice” for an election they perceive the other side somehow “stole” from them.  There will likely be accusations of voter fraud and challenges in the courts afterwards.  I fear the situation will be accentuated by racial overtones as it always is when there is a perception that race is involved.  Yes, November 6 may not be the end of the campaign, just another chapter.

I’m mad as hell , and so should you be!  There is nothing worse than lying.  That is what we learn as children, and what we, as parents, in turn, pass on to our own children.  “Whatever you have done wrong, just tell us and we will talk about it, but don’t lie to us. ” Apparently, President Obama and his key advisors in the White House and the State Department never learned that lesson.  They have been withholding critical information from the Amercian people regarding the Libya attack for six weeks.  Enough already!

Generally, Americans are very forgiving.  There are many examples of prominent persons, athletes, entertainers and politicians, who made a mistake, admitted it, took their lumps in the news, paid their penalty and moved on.  On the other side of the coin, we have the lesson of Watergate, where the cover-up proved to be worse than the original crime.  In that instance, it brought down Richard Nixon’s Presidency.

For the most part, the mainstream press is complicit in that they have not been pursuing the matter aggressively.  For example, during the most recent debate Bob Schieffer neglected to delve into the matter sufficiently, and in a recent one-on-one interview Brian Williams asked the President a series of softball questions, but nothing substantive about the Libya attack.

Now, it has come out that during the actual terrorist attack our people made several calls for assistance.  The military had a SEAL Team 2 hours away by air.  The 4-star general in charge of them has said they were not ordered to assist.  They could have been there in plenty of time.  The CIA had a team in the area headed up by Tyrone Woods.  They were told to stand down, but Woods disobeyed orders and went to their aid anyway.  His team rescued 30 people, but he was killed (7 hours later).  Seven hours was plenty of time for us to take some kind of action.

The foregoing is bad enough, but the Administration has compounded it by deceiving the American public after the fact.  Some of the questions that Mr. Obama needs to answer forthwith:  When did they know it was a terrorist attack?  Who directed Susan Rice, Jay Carney and others to blame it on the video and why?  Why did Mr. Obama go to Las Vegas the next day to hob nob with celebrities and donors rather than meet with world leaders in NY at the UN and confront the matter head-on?

Charles Woods, Tyrone’s father, is finally speaking out now.  He said he met with both Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton.  They “couldn’t look [him] in the eye.”  They gave an “insincere” apology, and shaking hands with Mr. Obama was like shaking hands with a “dead fish.”  Wonder who he’s voting for?

Conclusion and Prediction

I know the primary issue in this election is the economy and rightly so.  But, this has become about more than four dead Americans in a Libyan consulate, as tragic as that is.  It has become an issue of trust, competence and leadership.  Can we really trust a President who has withheld the truth and continues to do so with four more years?  Is he demonstrating the competence and leadership we need and deserve in a President?

The answer should be obvious, and in an election that is a virtual dead heat, anything can make the difference.  This incident is not going away, and it could very well swing the election.

The latest poll numbers indicate that the momentum Mr. Romney built up after the first Presidential Debate has been continuing, albeit at a slower pace.  The latest Rasmussen Poll released today shows Mr. Romney ahead 50% – 47% nationwide among likely voters.   Even more telling is an AP Poll showing that Mr. Romney has completely wiped out the 16 point deficit among women voters that he had in September.

These poll results are consistent with and, perhaps, explain the respective strategies of the candidates at the most recent debate.  Mr. Romney, sensing he had the momentum and was gaining even more ground, was more conservative and passive.  Mr. Obama, believed he needed to be more aggressive, to go on the offensive to try to blunt or, even better, reverse Mr. Romney’s momentum.  It now appears that even though Mr. Obama “won” the debate, he failed to blunt Mr. Romney’s momentum.  I believe there are many reasons for this, but the major one is that most voters are focused squarely on the economy and jobs rather than foreign policy or other domestic issues.

In addition to the foregoing, the latest polls, released today, report gains for Mr. Romney in various individual states, which is obviously more significant.  CNN reports that Michigan, where Mr. Obama once enjoyed a comfortable lead, is now a virtual deadheat.  Today, CNN reclassified North Carolina, Indiana and Missouri from “leaning” to Mr. Romney to “safely” for Mr. Romney.  Finally, Wisconsin, Mr. Ryan’s home state, is trending toward the Romney camp in large part due to Mr. Ryan’s influence.  Mr. Obama used to have a comfortable lead there, but it is now considered to be a toss-up.

At the present time, CNN estimates that Mr. Obama has a slight Electoral College lead (safe or leaning states) over Mr. Romney: 237 – 206.  270 electoral votes are required to clinch the election.  There are eight toss-up states with a total of 96 electoral votes.  These are Colorado (9), Florida (29), Iowa (7), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), Ohio (18), Virginia (13), and Wiscinsin (10).  Both candidates have alternative pathways to 270 utilizing various combinations of these states.  Mr. Obama has more flexibility since he presently has more electoral votes projected to be in his column.

All in all, this election is shaping up to be a real “nail-biter,” one of the most interesting and significant of our lifetimes.  We may not know the final result until the day after Election Day, or, if there are legal challanges in closely contested states, for several weeks.  Remember the “hanging chads” from Florida in 2000?

President Obama came out aggressively.  His objectives appeared to be to portray Mr. Romney as unfit to be commander-in-chief in that he would be more likely to get us entangled in a conflict and, in general, that he was inexperienced in foreign affairs.  On the other hand, Mr. Romney’s objective appeared to be to appear calm, reasonable and in control.  He did not attack as much as Mr. Obama.  Mr. Romney did, however, succeed in demonstrating a strong knowledge of foreign affairs.  Furthermore, I believe he was able to re-assure voters that he is qualified to be commander-in-chief and would not draw us into conflicts unnecessarily.  Once again, however, Mr. Romney missed a chance to attack Mr. Obama on his administration’s handling of the Libya attack.  In my opinion, that was a mistake.

In my opinion, Mr. Obama won the debate narrowly, but Mr. Romney achieved his objectives.  According to a CNN poll taken shortly after the debate 48% of debate-watchers thought Mr. Obama won and 40% thought Mr. Romney won.  Of course, the crucial question is to what extent, if any, this result will affect the actual voting.  We will get some sense of this later in the week.

Keep in mind, historically debate results normally don’t translate into votes on Election Day.  In addition, the central issues of the campaign are still the economy, jobs, the high debt, and the philosophical distinction between free enterprise and self-reliance versus Western Europe-style socialism.  Once the voters saw tonight that Mr. Romney could be trusted as commander-in-chief and would not be a dangerous “war mongerer,” I expect that those issues will carry more weight in most voters decision-making.