On Politics
Advice to Obama: Make More Friends in Congress
- By Charlie Cook
- November 13, 2012
- comments
President Obama deserves to be congratulated for his victory, as well as reminded that his win, with 50 percent of the vote, means that half of Americans who cast their ballots preferred either Mitt Romney or some other candidate. The victory offers the president the opportunity to win over people who voted against him—people who obviously felt that his performance during his first four years had not measured up. In fairness, most of those who voted against Obama did so out of ideology or partisanship. But at least 8 million people who voted for him in 2008 didn’t do so in 2012.
The question to ask right now is this: How will the next four years be different from the last four? Or, more specifically: What did Obama learn from the first term that he will apply to the second? He has conceded that he has not been a perfect president and has made mistakes, but I’ve never heard him elaborate about what mistakes he thinks he has made. As a result, I have no idea what Obama might believe he should do differently.
If he asked me, I’d say he might start by engaging Congress ...
Obama Can Thank Early Negative Ads for His Advantage
- By Charlie Cook
- November 6, 2012
- comments
America faces two general elections. One is occurring in seven or so swing states, where voters have experienced saturation advertising -- mostly negative -- since mid-June. The total-immersion process in these states has made this a very different campaign from that experienced by voters in the 40-odd other states who have witnessed this election from afar, largely through national news. It should be no surprise that voters in those two distinct groups should be behaving differently.
In the states that have experienced the minimalist campaign, the popular-vote numbers are even or maybe up for Republican nominee Mitt Romney by a bit. For people who live there, the campaign effectively started with the first debate. Many undecided voters were pleasantly surprised by Romney, who presented himself as moderate, reasonable, intelligent, and earnest. He also came across as more of a problem-solver than the ideological robot voters had seen earlier in the campaign through their binoculars.
But for those in the battleground states, who had seen Romney’s head bashed in last summer by the Obama campaign’s attacks on Bain Capital, plant closings, layoffs, outsourcing, and income taxes -- not to mention bank accounts in Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, and Switzerland -- skepticism has persisted ...
If Obama Loses, Blame the Debates
- By Charlie Cook
- October 30, 2012
- comments
Before the first presidential debate, it was easy to say that the face-offs usually don’t matter that much. One had to go back to 1976, 1980, and 1984 to find examples of a debate having a material effect on a presidential election. But that first debate earlier this month—specifically, Mitt Romney’s strong performance and President Obama’s weak one—had an impact that we are still seeing, even after the incumbent “won” the next two debates, if the instant polls are to be believed.
It’s worth noting that many political aficionados look at debates in a way that is inherently flawed. They grade the candidates’ performances, both in real terms and relative to expectations, the same way one might judge a high school debate, or score a boxing match or diving competition. The better way to judge a debate is to ask at its end, and again a few days later, “Did anything that happened change how people view one or both candidates?” By that standard, Romney’s performance in that first debate on Oct. 3, as well as his subsequent “losses,” have shifted the way a fairly significant number of swing voters view him, to ...
Possibility of a Popular, Electoral Vote Split is Real
- By Charlie Cook
- October 23, 2012
- comments
Romney entered the first debate with an edge arguably in only one battleground state: North Carolina. Going into the second debate, the former Massachusetts governor also led narrowly in Florida and Virginia, putting him ahead in three of 11 battleground states. Obama now holds small leads in Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin, with a slightly wider advantage in Nevada. He still leads, in my judgment, in Ohio by ...
There's No Question, Romney Changed the Game
- By Charlie Cook
- October 16, 2012
- comments
Before the first presidential debate, this column repeatedly pointed out that Mitt Romney needed something to happen -- an event or development that would change the trajectory of this race -- or he would lose. As Jay Leno remarked, the only people who thought President Obama won the debate were the NFL replacement referees. Unquestionably, the Denver debate changed the course of the race enormously. For Romney, it was necessary, but we will have to see if it is sufficient to put him over the finish line first.
That debate was the first of what former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld might have called “known unknowns,” meaning potentially significant events that could alter the landscape. These include the three presidential debates and the vice presidential debate, and two unemployment reports, the one that came out last week and the one on Nov. 2. That, of course, leaves the possibility of “unknown unknowns” shaking things up.
Some conflicting forces are certainly at work. For almost four years, the economy has been a millstone around Obama’s neck. As voters hear about the stock market nearing five-year highs and the resurrection of the housing sector, the Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence is at a seven-month ...
Furlough 'Consistency and Fairness'
Innovation in Government Dips
TSP Funds Stay Positive in April
5 Agencies with the Most Disconnected Leadership
No Bonuses for VA Benefits Execs
Will You Be Furloughed?
