The Spencerian

Into the Echo Chamber: Election

Thursday, November 1, 2012

Ben -

You know me.  I'm not a big "escape from the world" guy.  I am pretty much addicted to twitter and try to stay up on as much as possible.  I don't usually unplug completely.  But when you spend a long weekend on top of a mountain with bad cell service, unplugging is not an option, it is a guarantee.  All of this to say I haven't seen, heard or read a thing over the past five days.  I watched a little college football, did some hiking and waterfall finding with my boys and my wife, and pretty much just enjoyed myself.  

Man, was it nice.  That and a mother-in-law fighting cancer and a funeral this week for an uncle really forces some perspective on you.  We'll see how long that lasts...  

Of course, I came home to a half-dozen mailers and all sorts of reminders that decision day is right around the corner.  Do we get four more years of Obama/gridlock?  Do we clean the slate and start anew with Romney in charge?  It looks increasingly likely that the Senate will stay in the hands of the Democrats and the House will belong to the GOP, so no matter who sits at 1600 Pennsylvania, we will have divided government.  

Like David Brooks, I think Romney is more likely to make progress in that scenario than Obama.  The current leadership of the House has made too many promises and staked too much personal and political capital on opposing Obama to budge.  The Senate, as obstinate and byzantine as it may be, is a little more likely to play ball.  And we know that Mitt is not moored to any particular stance, belief or promise.  Whoever McKinsey picks for his cabinet posts, he will be looking to "do things" and to be seen as "taking charge".  That usually means small pieces of symbolic importance (see: Lilly Ledbetter Act) and some big talk as the broken news apparatus stupidly and pointlessly counts down the first 100 days of his presidency.

But I have come to a conclusion.  Anyone who has read us over the past few months has probably seen this coming.  I just do not see myself pulling the lever for Obama again.  I am too disappointed - the anti-life, pro-abortion stances, the challenge to religious freedom, the drone assassinations (particularly the redefinition of "enemy combatant"), four straight years of $1,000,000,000,000 or more budget deficits (and the guarantee of more, considering the projection is almost $4 trillion more in an Obama II Administration), etc.  

There are also two very "inside baseball" things that this administration has done which drive me nuts.  I realize how wonky and nitpicky they may seem, but they both matter.  First, we have a POTUS who has ordered the Attorney General not to defend legally enacted legislation currently on the books.  Think what you want of DOMA, but it is the law of the land.  The Attorney General is the lawyer for the Untied States of America, not for the Democratic party or even the president.  If it is the law of the land, he should defend it.  The political discussion about it and the legislative fight over it are different matters and certainly within Obama's purview to fight against it or work for its repeal.  It is a dangerous precedent.

An even more dangerous one, in my opinion, is what is happening with the Department of Education.  Listen, I am no fan of No Child Left Behind - I think it is terrible legislation that has fundamentally damaged our educational system.  However, if congress can't get its act together to replace, reauthorize or rewrite it, it is the law of the land.  The administration is offering states waivers from the law based on certain unilateral conditions, basically permitting them to violate federal law if they make policy changes that the administration wants.  None of it goes through congress - you know, the lawmaking body - or requires bipartisanship, debate or public scrutiny.  When you look at the precedent being set, it is frightening.  

Think about your personal biggie - the environment.  What would stop a Romney Administration from allowing states waivers from following the Clean Air Act if they met some random set of conditions set forth by the administration?  The process is the same and they could stand on the precedent being set by Obama and Arnie Duncan.

It is a dangerous game to rewrite process and procedure when you're the one in power.  You won't always be there and the Law of Unintended Consequences is more likely than not to bite you in the ass.  Ok, my inside baseball rant is over.  Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

I hate this election.  I hate the choices before me.  I can't wait for it all to be over.  But tonight I am going trick or treating with my boys and some neighbors.  Yesterday, my mother-in-law started chemo. Tomorrow, I bury my uncle.  I care about next Tuesday, but not as much.  

Best to the family and I hope that the sugar highs aren't too bad.

Matt 

# # # # 

Friday, November 2, 2012

Matt -- 

Perspective is always a good thing, and I am writing to you from Chicago, just a hop, skip and a train ride away from Obama Headquarters.  You can almost feel the energy here at the Hilton Garden Inn... almost.

I appreciate your view, I really do.  I don't understand it.  But I appreciate it. 

It's a head-scratcher for me for a couple of reasons.

One, I'm not as smart as you, so your ability to think through systematic impact is better than mine.  Still, can't DOMA and No Child Left Behind just be shitty laws?  

Therein lies the speciousness of the argument, "Romney can better work with a Republican Congress to get things done."  Really?  So the U.S. House of Representatives is controlled by a wing-nut cabal of tea party lunatics, and that's why Mitt Romney should be President?  

So the President issued waivers to federal law in the case of No Child Left Behind.  He wasn't going to get reform through the Boehner-led House, so what's he left to do?  

DOMA is horrible and discriminatory.  Look, you're talking to a proud former Justice Department employee.  You're right: the Attorney General is the lawyer for the nation's laws.  He has to work within those confines -- or out of them, depending on your view, I guess.  

But that doesn't mean he can't use political tools with respect to the law.

In short, I just don't think the President or the Attorney General did anything wrong -- and pretty much the rest of the country doesn't think so, either, so there's that.

You're right to lay out your case in terms of policy and why and how you disagree with Obama and likely won't pull the lever for him this time around.  Like I say, that is a refreshing approach I certainly appreciate, even if I don't agree with the outcome.

But policy talk is for six or eight weeks ago.  It's for the summer doldrums when we were looking for something to do.  

This is politics, and next week is the Big Day -- Election Day.  I know the machinations of campaigning are not your favorite, but in a year that has been divisive and contentious, I can finally take some comfort and enjoyment in the predictions, the granular-level polling data and, you know, have some fun.

So let's have some fun.

BJK

# # # #

Monday, November 5, 2012

Ben --

You know, one of the great things about this conversation we have been having is the way we approach things from completely different angles.  I don't mean the Red/Blue thing, just our perspectives.   It has been a lot of fun and I appreciate your willingness to indulge my idea.  So thank you for the time and blog space you have put into this (not so) little project - and the many, many more hours we have spent discussing it at work and over lunch.  

But all that is out the window now.  It's t-minus 1 day to Armageddon.  The mailers, the radio and tv ads, the yard signs will all go away soon enough - thank God.  So here we are.  Looking back on where we have been, here is what I see.  I see a country that was ready to reject another Obama term - a country unhappy with the economy, unemployment and gridlock and hyper-partisanship in DC.  You can, and have very eloquently, make the argument that little to none of that is the fault of President Obama.  But much like a quarterback in football, the POTUS gets too much credit when things are going well and too much blame when they are going poorly.  But it is undeniable that the country feels that we are on the wrong track - by a 14 point margin.  That spells doom for the incumbent.

Unless your opponent is terrible.  The parade of fools that was the GOP primary slog put this election, not just on the table for Obama, but in the likely category.  Romney emerged, but not unscathed.  He was not popular, well, pretty much anywhere, but he was chosen as the Not-Obama 2012 candidate.  In a way, it is a little impressive how far Romney has come from the early Summer.  He has passed the "looking/sounding/feeling Presidential" hurdle.  But do his personal and policy negatives - and an electoral college map that is a challenge, at best - outweigh the progress he has made?  

These last few days have seen the GOP insist that Pennsylvania, Minnesota and other solidly Democratic states are in play.  There are over 1 million more registered Dems in Pennsylvania than GOP.  Can turnout, independents and a national tide really put those 20 EV's in the Romney column?  Probably not.  

The argument for a Romney victory comes down to two simple points:

1) Polls have been oversampling democrats based on a 2008 turnout model.  They will all be wrong.

2) Undecideds and independents will break for Romney

I can see it.  Maybe the SpencerianRed brainwashing is complete, but let's take them one at a time.

1) Yes, polls have been oversampling Democrats.  Young people voted at unprecedented levels in 2008.  That ain't happening again.  I have been arguing this point for months.  Will the turnout model change?  Certainly.  Enough for a Romney win?  Maybe.  If a few states swing 3 points from the polls, Romney is at 291.  If they only swing 2.5, Obama holds on with 277. Hmmmm....

2) Late deciders usually break against an incumbent.  Independents who value getting things done may see the current state of DC as being unfair to Obama - as you explained well - but might be pragmatic/resigned enough to pull the lever for Romney despite the unfairness in hope of progress.  Undecideds who have been derided by most pundits and more certain friends and colleagues (cough, cough) are having a hard time convincing themselves to re-up on Obama.  That doesn't get better inside the voting booth.  

Still, I think there is a pretty big wall in front of Romney sitting right at 261 electoral votes - nine shy of what he needs.  If you pencil in Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado and New Hampshire for Romney, he sits at 261.  Which means just Nevada or Iowa doesn't do it.  He needs both, or any one of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and of course, Ohio.  

I could very easily see Romney taking Iowa but none of the others and Obama winning the Electoral College 271-267.  I could just as easily see Romney taking Iowa, Ohio and Wisconsin and landing at 295.

What do you see?

Matt

# # # #

Monday, November 5, 2012

Hi, Matt:

Let's get right to it.

My prediction is an Obama win with a decisive 303 Electoral Votes.

My map -- courtesy of 270toWin.com -- shows the state-by-state breakdown.

Sort of depends on where you're coming from, but there may be a few mild surprises in there for you.

I have Obama winning Viriginia, and because of that, I think it's going to be an early night.  Obama will take Virignia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, and when those states are called, it will be all over -- you can fact-check me at the clever New York Times path to victory app.

As you can also see, I have Obama losing Florida.  I made the mistake of saying he'd lose it in 2008, and I never really lived it down.  This time, I'm afraid I've got it right -- and the trending is backing me up.  This really is kind of extraordinary, given that Romney's running mate is the guy they labeled the "Zombie-Eyed Granny Starver" for his obscene plan to voucherize Medicare.  I have probably been in the most denial about Florida for this very reason.

Which leads me, in a roundabout kind of way, to polling.  I think a big surprise we'll see tomorrow night is how many pollsters -- some reputable, some not -- got it very, very wrong (perhaps even in Florida, which would please me greatly).

This election has been grossly poll-driven, and who knows: maybe we'll see that change.

For the Senate, I'm going with 54 Democrats -- I predict Baldwin will beat Thompson in Wisconsin; Tester will beat Rehberg in Montana; Heinrich will beat Wilson in New Mexico; in North Dakota and and Nevada, it'll go GOP, though it should be noted those races are close.  It should also be noted, I'm predicting tea party candidate Richard Mourdock loses in Indiana, Elizabeth Warren wins in Massachusetts, and McCaskill beats Todd Akin in Missouri.  

As we get to the outcome for the U.S. House of Representatives, that also gets me to my big prediction.

Here we go: The make-up of the House will stay exactly the same.  According to Real Clear Politics, there are currently 33 House races in the "Toss-Up" category.  I won't predict how each one will shake out, but I will say it'll look basically like it does now, which is, per the House Clerk, 240 Republicans, 190 Democrats, 0 Independents, and 5 vacancies.  

I'll give the Democrats a break by manipulating the numbers a bit, here - let's call those open vacancy races this way: 2 for the GOP, 3 for the Democrats.

That is a total of 242 GOP, 193 Democrats.

This, by the way, will be what the punditocracy -- shell-shocked at not being able to extensively covere the early-called Presidential race -- will swarm around.  They'll try to deduce meaning from a (basically) meaningless quirk of politics.  

But not totally meaningless.  I believe these results will spark an internal conflict within the GOP which could well split it in two -- the moderate, middle-of-the-road old-school conservatives, and the tea party-lead weirdo freaks.  The trouble will come from trying to interpret a mandate where none was given: tea partiers nominated the likes of Mourdock and Todd Akin to the Senate, but they'll get beat.  But they maintained firm control of the House, will be the retort.  But the GOP nominee for President was beaten handily... 

It'll be ugly.  And maybe necessary.

I also predict MSNBC will have a graphic with the word "Tea-mageddon!" prominently featured.

Looking forward to seeing what you have.

BJK

# # # #

Monday, November 5, 2012

 Ben -

Pass me the Jim Jones red kool-aid.  I am predicting Romney takes 295 Electoral Votes.  He gets Ohio, Wisconsin and Iowa to go with Colorado, Florida, Virginia and North Carolina.  Chris Matthews cries on air and then throws poop at Chuck Todd who is working the interactive digital touch screen big screen map while talking to a hologram of Teddy Kennedy... or something like that.  What I mean is there will be a total MSNBC meltdown.  Also, Rachel Maddow will punch someone in the face.  

However, I think it will take us a while to get there.  There will be big problems in Ohio - particularly in Cleveland, where Mitt is making a final day stop and screwing up traffic and all sorts of things.  I predict that independents break huge for Romney and that 18-25 turnout is 15-20% below 2008.  

And my stupid surprise forecast: Pennsylvania goes to a recount or gets damn close, depending on what the threshold is - but I say margin is <1%.  Obama holds it, but barely.  

I am in agreement with you that the polls will be the big scapegoat and punching bag.  The national media conversation for the next week will be "how did the polls get it so wrong?"  Otherwise they would have to talk about how wrong they were.  We know that won't happen.  Nate Silver will be roasted.  

As for the Senate - I see 53 D // 47 R.  Dems pick up Indiana and Maine, keep Montana.  They do not pick up Massachusetts as Scott Brown holds on in a mild surprise. The house goes 242 R // 193 D & I.  In Florida 18, Patrick Murphy defeats Allen West.  

I also predict that Paul Ryan will cry.  I don't know why, but I predict that cameras will catch him and his mom hugging/crying.  That is my most random prediction of the night.  Probably not my least accurate, but my most random (well, other than Chris Matthews throwing poop - but really, after his Denver meltdown, would you be surprised?)

I also predict that the slowly-emerging story on the D side will be a re-emergence of an isolationist/dove foreign policy contingent - most prominently in the Senate and with newer members of the House... but that is not an election day story - that is for another time and place.  

Basically, I am betting on the fundamentals overwhelming the campaign machinations.  An unhappy country chooses change, away from the President of Change...  

And yes, I am fully prepared for your mocking and laughing as Obama wins 277-261.

Should be fun tomorrow.

Matt 

# # # # 

Welcome to Into the Echo Chamber, the weekly electronic conversation of the 2012 presidential campaign as viewed from two Twitter feeds.  Matt Spence is monitoring the Twitterverse of the Romney Campaign, Republicans, and the "red" side of the aisle at @SpencerianRed.  I am monitoring the tweets of the Obama Team, Democrats using @SpencerianBlue.  Our email-based back-and-forths are posted here on Thursdays.  

You are, as always, invited to join the discussion, either in the comments below or by emailing Spencerian Red or Spencerian Blue. 

Into the Echo Chamber: Wrapping Up

Monday, October 22, 2012

Matt -- 

It's Monday, and as I sit home trying to fight off a cold, it occurs to me that this will be one of the last Into the Echo Chambers we do before Election Day.  We'll be less than two weeks out by the time we publish this exchange.  Whatever news comes out of tonight's debate will be fading, and we'll be on to something new in the news cycle.  

Which, in a funny sort of way, gets me to where I want to start.  I've been thinking about our last exchange since we posted it, and more specifically, your problem with this election, which had as much to do with broken government as with who to vote for.  

Our society -- our culture -- has actually out-paced our government.  This, I think, is only part of what's at the heart of your frustration. 

You talk a lot about your time with the youth from your church and your trip to Jamaica to serve the people there and build something that mattered, something that would have an immediate and lasting impact on their lives.  This was something you and a handful of kids did -- yes, with the support of your church -- but largely you did it all yourselves.

To over-simplify the conundrum, if you can do it on somewhat limited resources, why can't our government of virtually limitless resources? 

Well, I'm done making my plea for slow, deliberate government.  I think government works more than it doesn't, but I do understand folks from my generation and more so yours (and the folks who are even younger) exist in a country, an economy and a social environment that is fast and largely self-reliant.  It's what new media is all about.  

Hell, it's what this project has been about.  After all, we didn't divide the nation's newspapers in half by region and review their daily coverage of the campaigns.  We set up Twitter accounts.

And so your question of frustration becomes compounded.  It becomes easy to see that you're not the only one with that same frustration. 

This is one where I'm not so sure government is entirely at fault.  

I'd like to avoid the now-cliched money-is-corrupting-politics line.  It's true, of course.  The un-moored flow of cash into campaigns has ruined politics for a lot of people.  It has gone a long way towards ruining how our government works, too, notably in the Legislative Branch, where Members spend more time raising cash than they do working together on solutions to big national and global problems.

But we know all of that.  

Whenever I mention a newspaper or TV show screwing something up on this blog, I use the phrase, "our broken media apparatus," because that's what it is.  I think when they write the history books, they'll note the complicity -- the paralysis -- of the "mainstream media" most especially as it relates to politics with the horror and disgust it is due.  

We can talk about why this happened if you want -- the rise of new media, actually, in some part -- but to be honest, I no longer care.  The people running newspapers and national TV cable shows across the country have let us all down.  

It wasn't really President Obama that got the applause the other night when Mitt Romney dropped the ball -- big time -- on the Libya question.  It was CNN's Candy Crowley, for doing some on-the-spot -- and, it must be said, all too easy -- fact-checking.  She was, in other words, doing what a reporter (and yes, debate moderator) should do.  

We got caught up in this idea that there are only two credible sides -- Blue and Red, if you will -- and everyone else is, quite literally, worthless (though to be fair, I laughed out loud when I saw Roseanne Barr on the ballot).  And when you have only two sides, like the Yin and the Yang, they must be equal, balanced.  

Even when they're not.

The result is the country we have now, with half of it buying everything sold by Fox News and the Murdock Empire, and the other half downing the MSNBC Kool-Aid seven days a week.  

We're at a point where even as Mitt Romney lies in ways easily and immediately provable, the Red side won't ever believe they are lies... because they don't have to.  Fox would never report it that way.  

I'm not so sure this election hasn't been a critical moment for large-scale, traditional media outlets -- yes, "our broken media apparatus".  Like their complicity in the blind run-up to the Iraq War, this election has largely brought shame to the House of Journalism.  Sure, if Romney tells a lie, he gets a "pants on fire" or a "Pinnochio" or some other too-cute by half measurement... 

It's all a little disheartening -- and it does nothing to help you feel better about the process.

So there you go, Matt.  

Thoughts?

BJK

# # # #

Ben -

You have most definitely hit the nail on the head with this one.  A broken media apparatus has certainly let us all down.  And a working media apparatus is CRITICAL to the success of a democracy.  You don't have to take my word for it - ask our Founding Fathers.  It's in the First freaking Amendment.  Religion, speech, press, assembly, redress.  There you go - ahead of guns and due process.  Freedom of the press.  

We are guaranteed by our founding document to have an independent overseer.  Why?  The preamble tells us it is "to prevent abuse of power and to extend public confidence in the government."  It doesn't take a journalism scholar to call what we have today 0 for 2 on those measures.

Here in Pinellas, we have the benefit of one of the best newspapers in the country - certainly top 10, if not top 5.  Personally, I have a love-hate relationship with the St. Petersburg Times.  She was my first big-boy employer, offering me a summer internship after my freshman year of college.  There are many happy memories of fighting over the sports section with my father, of celebrating when I was mentioned in it, laughing about the way piles of it infested my house growing up and drove my mom nuts, and finally, appreciating the epilogue of my father's life written by it.   

Yet that article may help shine a light on exactly what we are talking about.  The first paragraph is fiction.  The author talked to my mom and sister and some JWB colleagues when he was researching it, gathering material.  Lord knows there were plenty of wonderful things to say about my dad, yet he made some shit up because ... who knows.  "A lilting, professorial cadence" "paused to ponder the wordplay"????  Really?  The guy never talked to my dad and I can guarantee that nobody said that about him.  But it tells a nice story that is mostly true.  And I guess that is where we are with old media.  Take a fact or event, build a narrative that matters to you, the reporter, and run with it.

Oh well.  That is why we run to twitter.  Why we cross-reference and multi-source.  Why we don't trust a newspaper to tell the whole, unbiased story.  And newspapers are hardly the worst offender.  As you pointed out Faux News and MSNBC are more like rival candidates than professional peers.  For Fox News, if you have to tell people you're fair and balanced... guess what, you aren't.  And MSNBC might as well add "Obama-Biden, 2012" to their eerily similar slogan of "Lean Forward".  

And so we have our Echo Chamber.  I hear what I want.  You hear what you want and we never have to hear the same thing.  Ridiculous.  It goes back to my point last week about losing faith in big institutions.  I can't believe I left the media off that list.  Maybe because it is too obvious.  Too apparent to anyone with a radio, a television or internet access.  

So what do we do about it?  One of my very good friends is the #2 at a good sized regional paper within a larger media company.  He and I used to have great conversations on that very topic.  For obvious reasons, it was much more pressing for him than me.  But it goes to show that many, even within the business, know the issues aren't just Craigslist and the internet stealing ad revenue and phones and tablets stealing readers.  There are fundamental problems that need big solutions.  

Sound familiar?  

I'm curious to hear what our party standard bearers have to say tonight - and who is the most creative in pivoting away from the theoretical topic of the debate - foreign policy.  I'll watch and follow on twitter.  I'll read articles and blogs.  I'll talk it over with you tomorrow if everyone's feeling better.  But I sure as heck won't be taking any single media outlet's word for any of it.

Back to you my friend,

Matt  

  

# # # #

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Matt -- 

I'm glad you brought up your dad.  If you'll forgive me saying so, I miss him.

But I am glad you brought him up, because I've been thinking about him as we've been having this discussion on the working and functionality of government in particular.  And it is appropriate that we have segued into media as well.

One of the great things I always admired about your father was his incredible memory for people and programs that had come before -- some going back decades.  And so in a way, nothing was really that new to him.  I'm not sure it's much of an exaggeration to say he'd kind of seen it all, at least with respect to the universe of the Juvenile Welfare Board.  So when a staff project came around he typically served as one of a couple of things: either a well of history and context which enriched whatever you were working on, or the guy who would send you back to the drawing board again and again (and again) because he'd seen it done that way once.  And it was wrong.  

Those two things were not mutually exclusive, and I experienced both.  

Again, you'd certainly know better than I, but I always got the impression your dad had little patience for a lot of the bullshit that goes with national politics.  I loved that he was always up for a good political conversation with me, but wonder if he'd be as disheartened as you and I have been this year. 

Which leads me to ask: really, Mitt?  "I love teachers"?  At a debate on foreign policy?  

In a normal election year, Romney would have been virtually disqualified from the race once Obama delivered the bayonets and horses line.  I said earlier I thought the line of the night -- and perhaps the best line of the whole debate series -- came when Obama reminded Romney that trips to foreign countries are about content, not fundraising.  Again, a line fatal to a campaign in any other year but this.  

Of course, the low point for me was Romney and Obama having a virtual love-fest over the Predator drone program.  Really, really disheartening.

But like I said, we're not in a normal year.  

"Red" folks can hear whatever they want to hear.  "Blue" socialist hippies like me can hear whatever we want to hear, and never the twain shall meet.  

Which is not at all how it's supposed to work.  

I guess that's a roundabout way of saying I wish we had more guys like your dad in our federal government.  It would surely work a lot better than it does now.

Here's hoping that by the time our kids are old enough to talk about us like this, things will be working a lot better than they are.

One last note, Matt: we're just a few days out from Election Day.  I suspect you and I have remarkably similar Electoral College maps, probably putting Obama somwhere just over the 270-to-win mark.  Maybe we differ on Colorado or New Hampshire, but not by much.  

Instead, do you have any local or state-wide races you're watching in other states?  I've been fascinated by the Scott Brown/Elizabeth Warren race in Massachusetts, which I think will go to Warren.  

What do you think?

Best,

BJK 

# # # #

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

 Ben -

Thank you for the kind words and the sentiment.  Yes, my dad would have had very little tolerance for today's campaigns.  He was a man who relished good conversation - politics, baseball, college football, a good book, anything really - and there is not a conversation going on in the 2012 election cycle.  There are shrill attacks, distortions, dog whistles, and platitudes.  The debates, all three, were not really a conversation, they were two bitchy teenage girls sniping at each other in the lunchroom.  He would have detested it.  

But what would have really turned his stomach, and what turns mine, is the dishonesty.  The total lack of integrity from either campaign.  Sure, it has always been there in politics.  But not necessarily this craven.  Not necessarily this personal.  Not necessarily this prevalent.  As I said earlier, the army of fact-checkers just reinforce the notion that nobody is telling the truth, that all statements made by politicians must be arbitrated and can never be accepted at face value.  Maybe that's life, but it is a part of life that my father was never willing to accept.  And I hope I have learned that from him.  There were many, many positive traits to associate with my father, with integrity being at the very top.  I don't see it anywhere in this election cycle.   

I am certainly disgusted.  Not just weary and ready for it to be over.  Disgusted.  With Romney yes, but with Biden and even with Obama.  By the way, is Paul Ryan in witness protection?  Have we heard a word about him since his weird encounter with Smilin' Joe? Funny that a guy who was going to "turn the election in Florida" (either way depending on who you listen to) is as irrelevant as every other vice presidential candidate ever.  

As for predictions, I'd be very surprised if Warren and Bill Nelson didn't win.  I'd be surprised if Linda McMahon did win.  I'd be only mildly surprised if Akin won, sadly.  As for the top of the ticket, I think you've nailed it.  Funny enough, I agree with this analysis by your least favorite MSNBC personality, Joe Scarborough.  It's gonna be either narrow Obama victory or a Romney walk.  Who would have predicted Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, Nevada and Florida all going to Obama in '08?  There's a sliver of a chance they all, plus Iowa, Wisconsin, and Ohio tip the other way this time around. 

Seriously, find me something before October of 2008 saying that McCain would lose Indiana and Virginia.  I can't remember anything.  But something bigger than polling and normal election garbage was going on in '08.  It was a new enthusiasm that the pundits could observe, but not really calculate and understand.  They were surprised when the landslide came.  I remember how giddy MSNBC was when Indiana came in for Obama.  It was like the contestant who wins both Showcase Showdowns on The Price is Right.  And if something surprising like that were to happen this year, I don't think it would be on the Blue side.  

It sure seems like the confident campaign is the one in Boston, not Chicago.  I think that the Romney people see a pretty simple equation: 1) Romney passed the "looking presidential" hurdle 2) Americans are still generally dissatisfied with the economy and the last four years 3) The people can't blame our guy 4) They'll blame Obama, not for falling short of Romney '12, but for falling short of Obama '08.     

And they will act accordingly, so get ready for a deluge of Obama's '08 promises and soundbites approved by Mitt.  Get ready for the dead horse numbers: 8% (unemployment), $5,000 (drop in median family income), 23 million (un- and underemployed), $16 trillion (national debt), and the Red version of 47 (million Americans on food stamps).  Every TV viewer in all of the above states will be hearing those numbers in their sleep.  

Don't get me wrong, I think Obama holds... but narrowly.

Interestingly enough, that brings us back to the press.  Earlier this week, the Orlando Sentinel endorsed Mitt Romney.  So did the Tampa Tribune.  I wouldn't be surprised if more were on the way.  Say what you will, but in the swing I-4 corridor, that ain't good.  Yes, the biggest and the best endorsed Obama, but that was never in question.  

Do endorsements matter?  We shall see.

Best to the family,
Matt

# # # #

Thursday, October 25, 2012 

I am going to butcher this so it's probably best I don't remember where it came from, but someone once said that campaigns were the simple distillation of complicated problems.  That's realy true, and so we are left with a couple of things.

The first is a frustrated populace.  America's not stupid.  We just play stupid people on TV.  The truth is, we know there are complicated issues here at home and around the world.  They are layered with nuance and delicate complexities we can barely begin to understand, if we understand them at all.  

We want someone smart and insightful and thoughtful to take on these problems.  Hell, it's what we hired Obama to do four years ago.  It's why I think we'll re-hire in in less than two weeks.  

You and I disagree about how craven and untruthful the Obama campaign has been.  We'll get past it.  Frankly, I'm not sure who lied and who didn't is even the point, because after all, the real point is who can best simply distill the complexity.  

I think Obama does it more earnestly.  I think he's more sincere.  Much more so, actually.

I think the one single thing Mitt Romney has in common with the tea party, far-right base he worked so hard in the primaries to cater to is a cynical view and personal disdain for the government he wants to lead.  

Their First Commandment is the old Reagan line, "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."  Of course, that's the same tax-raising Reagan who could never survive in today's GOP.

I've said in other places on this blog that I don't think this election should ever have been this close.  

You are right on the Obama promises, but for every promise, there are significant indicators of the improving economy -- and an improving quality of life.  Where I get frustrated is that this is usually answered -- in the form of our broken media apparatus -- focusing for a day on the useless antics of Donald Trump. 

Which once again gets us back to broken media.  

I think endorsements matter, but they matter less than they ever have... because of the echo chamber.  If the Sentinel endorses Romney (which they did), then it's just more fodder for the GOP chamber.  When the Tampa Bay Times endorses Obama (which they did), then it's just more for the "blue" side, right?  

I'll tell you this, though: when the Times endorsed Obama, I didn't see any mention of it over at @SpencerianBlue.  An oversight?  Maybe I missed it?  Possibly.  But I think that tells you something.   

This has been a tough slog of an election, and frankly I'm sort of proud of us for keeping up with this as faithfully as we did.  Next week is the last full week, so we might try something a little different.

Here's to this thing finally winding down.

Best to Erin and the kids.

BJK

# # # #

Welcome to Into the Echo Chamber, the weekly electronic conversation of the 2012 presidential campaign as viewed from two Twitter feeds.  Matt Spence is monitoring the Twitterverse of the Romney Campaign, Republicans, and the "red" side of the aisle at @SpencerianRed.  I am monitoring the tweets of the Obama Team, Democrats using @SpencerianBlue.  Our email-based back-and-forths are posted here on Thursdays.  

You are, as always, invited to join the discussion, either in the comments below or by emailing Spencerian Red or Spencerian Blue. 

Into the Echo Chamber: Nobody's Right If Everybody's Wrong

Monday, October 15, 2012

Ben -

We've reached a strange point, not just in this election, but in American politics.  I am not usually prone to hyperbole, especially when it comes to politics.  For the most part, my thoughts on politics are that it is as it ever was.  There was mud slinging in the 1970's, the 1870's and the 1770's.  There have been intractable disagreements on all sorts of topics during the history of our Republic.  There are always claims that the most recent election, issue, candidate, Supreme Court decision, etc. will fundamentally alter the universe as we know it.  They're usually a crock of shit.  Yet, there are times when fundamentals do truly change.  When tectonic shifts occur.  When a paradigm fades away.  

I'm not 100% convinced we're there yet, but I think there's such a moment on the horizon.  I can't say that I know how it will play out or what will be the catalytic moment.  Maybe it will be this election.  Maybe not.  But fundamentally, there are things going on in our country that are unsustainable.  

A boom generation is fading away into retirement and some painful and necessary changes will result.  What happens to cities and school districts and states when early retirement collides with longer lifespans and underfunded pensions?  What happens when urban revitalization collides with reduced home ownership and creates suburban (and especially ex-urban) decay?  

We are just emerging from an era where "putting a boot in your ass" was the American Way.  Now we are in a place where we are still fighting a war and a half, bombing in several other places and rattling sabres at even more.  I don't think there is a collective will to continue this type of intervention everywhere simultaneously.  Though our leaders have asked us not to be affected by war and its costs - don't consider it in budgets, don't sacrifice your lifestyle to support it, don't think about the thousands of dead, young, mostly lower-middle class Americans halfway around the world - at some point, the American people are going to tire of hearing about soldiers we are training and funding turning their firepower on us.  Americans are going to tire of spending billions on rebuilding Kabul and Mosul while San Bernadino, California can't cover payroll.  At some point it will become politically unsustainable to spend a trillion and a half dollars on airplanes while cutting hundreds of millions from education. 

To bring it back to our current political climate, I think the answer is that many Americans have simply lost faith in government's ability to solve problems.  Heck, legislators are, yet again, hanging a guillotine over their own heads to force themselves to do their job. Yet if you asked, I doubt that even members of Congress believe that they will pass a budget or the 13 appropriations bills it takes to fund government activities - and certainly nowhere near on time (which was two weeks ago, FYI.)

So what?  Nobody's right if everybody's wrong.  I think this is why candidates can get away with lying outrageously.  People assume that ALL politicians are lying.  The vast array of fact-check organizations out there don't serve to de-clutter the arena, they serve to validate the notion that everybody lies.  There's a reason why Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are who a younger generation turn to for information. They don't believe any politician, so why not just treat it like the big joke it is?

And that allows Romney's debate "win" on style and the Biden-Ryan "draw" because, especially in the second instance, facts weigh equally with demeanor.  So, in most cases, Joe may have had the better facts and the stronger arguments, but Ryan stayed calm and didn't act like a jerk.  In today's political climate, that's a wash.  

Where does that leave us?  On what, exactly, are people basing their vote?  To be sure, there are plenty of true believers who live the Echo Chamber and only choose to see the lies that the other guys tell.  Their worldview determines which facts make it through the clutter and which opinions, speeches, moments and issues lead them to the ballot box.  But that isn't everyone.  There are plenty who admit that even their guys can spin things with the best of them and aren't batting 1.000 when it comes to the positions that matter to them, but choose to support them with eyes open. It is my belief that those groups are much smaller than most believe and the group who can't decide, isn't happy with either choice or just doesn't give a crap is much larger than we are led to believe.  

And as my writing may have made increasingly clear over the past few months, I am squarely in the last group. There isn't a candidate out there who represents my view on things.  When I asked whether it should be a plague on both houses, I wasn't asking rhetorically.  I think there are quite a few people asking the same thing.  

You asked me if I plan on voting for Romney.  I am aware that this is pretty much an excommunicating offense in many places (potentially including my own mother's house) but I am considering it.  I feel a responsibility to vote, to participate in the American experiment, to express my desire for our government through the power of my the ballot.  I do not take that freedom and privilege lightly.  But a vote for Romney is a vote for a bunch of things I detest.  A vote for Obama is the same.  So do I pick which bitter pill I'd rather swallow?  

So I will follow this week's debate, and the next one.  I will read the endorsements and check out some political ads.  I will review candidate guides and be very familiar with my choices on November 6.  I won't like either choice.  I am a swing voter in a swing county of a swing state from a swing block of votes.  And I'm stuck in the middle where neither side looks very good.  And I don't believe I am alone.  

As my elder and someone with much more deeply convicted political leanings, I ask for your help.  Talk me off the ledge.  Don't tell me who I should vote for because that isn't my question.  Tell me why I should vote at all.  Tell me that imperfect representation is better than no representation and that I can choose between two imperfect representatives without feeling like I need to hold my nose with the other hand.  Please.

Matt 

# # # #

Monday, October 15, 2012

Matt --

Your "elder."

Ouch.

This is excellent, Matt, and I deeply appreciate your sentiment. I'd also like to spend some quality time telling you why you -- why everyone -- should vote, and not just that you should vote for Obama.

For now, though, just a couple of quick anecdotes.

When I was younger -- a lot younger -- I had a mentor at the Drug Czar's Office named George Kosnik. He had been a former undercover New York Police Officer in the 70s and 80s, which meant he saw a lot of really crazy shit. Most of his stories are not safe for work. They're not actually safe anywhere, but boy, where they great when your'e a 22 year-old single guy getting started in Washington, D.C.

He was a good man with some demons. He was smart. He was vulgar. He was a good friend.

And he understood systems. He understood large governmental systems very, very well, which is why he ran the Law Enforcement Branch for the Bureau of State and Local Affairs at ONDCP. It was a pretty big deal.

If you know anything about the Drug Czar's Office, you know that they're the ones responsible for the "This is your brain on drugs" frying egg ads (and other useless ads, too). The other little-known fact is that they -- that is, the Director -- has basically a 2% budget authority over federal agencies which have anything to do with drug education (Department of Education), treatment (the VA, HHS, others), enforcement (Treasury, Justice), and interdiction (DoD, and now Homeland Security). The Director can basically allocate two percent of certain parts of each of those agency budgets (those and more, actually) towards overall anti-drug efforts.

This means the annual ONDCP Budget is, from the perspective of people in the anti-drug world, a pretty big deal.

So when the first ONDCP Budget in the Clinton Administration was unveiled, it was, in my world, a huge deal. Lots of prep. Lots of work. Lots of late nights. Lots of printing fancy books. I felt like I was really contributing to something important, in my own small way.

When it was finally unveiled, I thought the world, in stunned awe, might come to a screeching halt, stand slowly, and begin a thunderous, lasting applause. We would change the world. It was just that huge.

You'll be shocked to learn, I am sure, that the unveiling didn't make the front page of the Washington Post. It may have made the "B" section, I don't remember. No matter. I was crushed.

Over the comfort food of a deli hot pastrami sandwich, George explained it to me.

He said in that brilliant New York accent I'll never forget, For two lousy fuckin' percent? What do you want, a goddam standing ovation? Government keeps going. If it stops, you know it's broken.

And that's when it became clear to me, like a bolt from the blue. Government is slow. It is often too slow. It is not, in fact, meant to innovate. It is meant to serve as a support structure for things that do innovate. And it must always maintain forward momentum.

And what George meant was that we should always keep perspective on this. It's great to do good things in government. But government itself rarely determines what is good and what is great and what is not. And so the complex wheels of government march forward.

It all became more clear to me when the staff began working on the next Fiscal Year budget just a few weeks later. Never stop, don't stop...

That was 1993. Long time ago.

It's nearly twenty years later, and the world has gotten a lot faster.

Government hasn't.

So this is my first question back to you to try and re-frame your thinking: from specific issues to the nature of government, governing, and how elected officials (aside from Presidents) govern.

Your frustrations aren't so much with the issues, Matt. I have found you to be a man of deep faith and abiding principles. Those are admirable, too-rare traits in this cynical world.

So don't run the issues that matter most to you through the meat grinder of the Cynicism Machine. Figure out the bigger frame. Don't look at the big picture. Figure out which museum you're in.

Frustrated that you're in the modern art wing when you want to be in where the Realists are? Find the curator.

Every museum needs a curator. Ask yourself: who's the best curator?

That's enough for now.

Let's keep this going...

BJK

# # # #

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Matt --

Gun control. Parenting. Energy. The economy. Taxes.

The 47%. Libya.

I don't know, man -- was this "our" debate?

I ask that of you as a more serious question: was this more of the kind of thing you were looking for in a debate? What were your take-aways?

I know I have (probably wrongly) shied away from the abortion issue, but I am genuinely curious to hear your thoughts on what Governor Romney said tonight. I wonder if that wasn't a critical moment for voters like you. I'll look forward to your response.

I'll have more detailed thoughts later, but I thought this was Obama's comeback moment, obviously. Interestingly, the slam-dunk moment was the Libya question, and Candy Crowley fact-checking Mitt Romney on the fly, to the point she literally shut him down. "Am I incorrect in saying that?" is not the phrase you want to be uttering in a debate to the moderator. The audience applause after was devastating.

Where in the hell was this Obama a couple of weeks ago?

Breaking the thread, I know -- sorry.

Best to Erin and the kids.

BJK

# # # #

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Ben -

"If it stops, you know it's broken."  True.  But as a father with a million and one toys that move, crank, play music and do all sorts of other things, you know as well as I do that there is another sign that something is broken.  It does the same thing over and over and can't be stopped or knocked back on track.  That may be a different kind of broken, but it is broken none the less.  Sounds like today's government to me.  

Solve the fiscal crisis?  Nah, we'll just pass some continuing resolutions and kick the can down the road.

Figure out how to get the economy rolling again?  Nah, we'll just print more money.
Take an honest look at our over-leveraged entitlement system headed for serious problems?  Nah, we'll just demagogue each other and call names and hope nobody asks us to really fix it.
Solve our national dependence upon oil?  Nah, we'll just set unrealistic long-term targets we can't possibly be held accountable for because we will long be out of office

I don't care who you are or what you are running, when you consistently spend more than you are bringing in, you are asking for trouble.  When you promise more than you can deliver and spread yourself too thin, you find yourself scrambling to solve problems of your own creation.  

In a way, I do think government is designed to be slow.  Mostly because it is designed to handle big problems.  Safety, security, freedom, equality, justice.  Government can handle those things methodically and in the non-political sense, conservatively.  Create organizational solutions like the military, the court system, the diplomatic corps, food inspections, equal voting rights, etc.  It is good to go slow on things like that.  Lay a solid foundation.  Get it right.  

But we live in an era where the big institutions are being called into question.  Sure, some of that happened with Vietnam, but in a different, simpler way.  Now, you're talking Wall Street, organized religion, the American auto industry, public schools, the social safety net... you get the idea.  Slow is a defense against innovative overreach and overreaction.  But slow needs a counterweight.  Government still needs to be pushed to be better, more efficient, more effective.  In some cases, the tortoise wins the race because he doesn't get distracted.  In some cases, he's blown out - you know, because he's slow.  

Slow is also another way to know when a toy is broken.  That really, really annoying song you hear over and over?  When it slows down and becomes distorted, you know the toy is broken.  So is government the steady tortoise or is it a broken toy?    

Maybe my question can be modified.  Instead of asking if government is broken, I'll ask you for evidence that slow and steady progress is being made.  Are we safer?  Are we spending money smarter?  Are we creating opportunities for people?  Are we learning?  Are those in power making decisions for themselves or for the future?

Is there an undeclared generation war between those nearing or in retirement and their children and grandchildren? In 2025, when MJ graduates high school, will 2 workers be able to fund 1 retiree?  (It was 5:1 in 1960)

And that really brings it to the one question that matters to me:

Are we still ensuring a brighter, more prosperous future for Emmy, Finn, MJ, Luke and Nolan?  Or are we going to be the generation that hands things off to our kids in worse shape?

I care about that a hell of a lot more than I care about who won the talking points of a debate.

I am sure I'll have some things to say about the Town Hall debate when I get around to watching it.  I'll be looking for an answer to that question.

Best to the kids,
Matt 

# # # #

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Ben -

Interesting the differences when citizens are choosing the questions and not media, isn't it?  And unfortunately, it forces both candidates to suspend reality to an extreme and ridiculous level.  Some of the claims made by Romney were laughable.  Unfortunately, the same is true for Obama.  

There is no doubt that Obama was light-years better in this debate.  Romney tried to work from the same playbook as Denver, but had a completely different opponent.  He didn't handle it well.  It was like someone finally stood up to the boss and he didn't know how to react.  He got flustered, and he missed or flubbed some of his basic talking points.  Obama pounced.  

But man, did POTUS have a terrible moment.  A simple question - should have been a homerun - really tripped him up.  A 2008 supporter asked him simply, "What have you done to keep my support."  Teed up, Mr. President.  Say, "thank you" and take a swing.  But he didn't.  Instead it was a jumbled answer that fell short of what he could have/should have said:   "The commitments I made, I've kept.  And the ones I didn't..."  What?  Did you keep them or not?  And Romney nailed the follow up "I think you know better..." and then walked through a series of unfulfilled promises.  He then returned to his safe place - hammering the jobs/poverty/welfare numbers.  

But that was one of very few highlights for the Mittster.  Instead, we get more of the Romney etch-a-sketch.  Holy cow, it is tough to figure out what he might actually do as President.  Will he force employers to provide contraception coverage against their will?  He's been clear in the past that he would not.  But he just said that all women should have access to contraception coverage.  I guess there is a sliver of disingenuous space between those two comments - women could technically have "availability" without getting it through their employer... I guess.  And that isn't the only one.  There are plenty - how he would handle children of illegal immigrants, paying for tax cuts, and on and on.  

In a way, we're back to where we began - a referendum on Obama - because we have no idea what a President Romney would do.  I think you've got a point that one of the reasons Obama did so poorly in Denver was because he was preparing to debate Primary Mitt and instead got New Mitt (same as the old Mitt?)  

The crafty thing about New Mitt is that he is still paying attention to his base on easy issues.  His guns answer that moved to a discussion of two-parent families being the perfect example.  The base will eat that up.  And they'll love that he doesn't want to solve the gun issue in any way.  But then he stepped on his message by attacking POTUS.  He should have just left it alone.  He couldn't, and the personal distaste they have for each other, exemplified by that moment and many others, is the thing I will remember most from this debate.  

The sniping between the two is getting a little ridiculous - and it will make debate #3 on foreign policy especially spicy.  But it took away from the town hall format.  Romney stepped on his own points with falsehoods and misstatements, Obama made jokes to avoid serious questions (that Romney wasn't supposed to be asking him directly to begin with.)  Hence the title of this week's discussion: Nobody's right if everybody's wrong.  I realize that I am more cynical about the last four years than you are, but despite the awkwardness, the bullying and the ignoring of time, process and questioners, Romney did ask some valid questions about what has happened - and even more relevant, what hasn't -  over the last four years.  I know that's not how you saw it, but ...  we shall see.  

If it comes down to trust, I think Obama still carries the day.  If it comes down to satisfaction, he's got a problem.  Maybe he shouldn't, but he does.  In a way, his answer about Libya was a perfect metaphor for this point.  He asked the questioner to trust him - he stated that in foreign policy, he means what he says and he follows through.  Romney tried to knock that down - and failed - but then called his honesty into question.  I think Romney and his people get it that they lose on trust.  They are working to make sure Obama loses too.  And that is why the next three weeks will be unbearable with attack ads and aggressive talk.  

As I said earlier, even with all that has happened, we're back to the beginning.  Romney's $185 million attack ad budget attempting to make Obama II less palatable than Romney I (whatever the heck that might look like.)  

Boy, I'll be excited for November 7th.  How about you?

Matt 

# # # #

Welcome to Into the Echo Chamber, the weekly electronic conversation of the 2012 presidential campaign as viewed from two Twitter feeds.  Matt Spence is monitoring the Twitterverse of the Romney Campaign, Republicans, and the "red" side of the aisle at @SpencerianRed.  I am monitoring the tweets of the Obama Team, Democrats using @SpencerianBlue.  Our email-based back-and-forths are posted here on Thursdays.  

You are, as always, invited to join the discussion, either in the comments below or by emailing Spencerian Red or Spencerian Blue.

Into the Echo Chamber: No Easy Day

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Matt -- 

A brief post to get us kicked off for the week, because it has been, well... a very, um, special day, and I am whipped.

I've co-opted the title of the apparently somewhat fictional account the SEAL Team raid that took out bin Laden for this post.  I don't do it to disparage NAVY Seals.  I deeply respect the world's most intensive training the Navy SEALs undergo.  I honor the fact that they live to keep us safe.  I just think that Marc Owen stole the line from pretty much every parent, ever. 

Let me not lecture you, the father of three boys, on tough parenting days.  Also, don't let me get distracted.  Or something.

There are, in fact, easy parenting days, and those are the days you live for.

There are easy campaign days, too -- and you hope you get more of those around Election Day than, say, February.  To date, President Obama has had more "easy days" than Mitt Romney.  That is to say, he's had a lot more go his way than has Mitt.  

Debate Night was not one of them, for sure, and recent polling is showing a pretty good polling bump for Mitt.

The truth is, there comes a point when there's just not much you can do anymore except hope for those easy days, and work like hell to make sure they happen.  In other words, there really is a moment when the outcome of the election is less in the hands of either campaign, and is more up to the voters.  Different folks would argue about when that is, exactly; I say that time begins around the end of this week, actually, the second week of October.  Others would say a little later.  Some, earlier.

Why?  Well, absentee and vote-by-mail ballots are out in many states, including this one.  Indeed, I know people who have voted already (Duncan and I will this week).  

Sure, there's a few more debates.  Sure, we still have about a month to go or so.  Little less.  

Matt, some days you wake up expecting a good one.  Then you remember the thing you have to do for work, which I hope you can type with one hand, because you have to hold your son who is gassy and crying and your daughter wants a bagel -- no she doesn't, though, she wants a dried fruit snack, which she doesn't, really, she wants candy.  None of that makes your wife happy, because she's got laundry to do, and some errands to run, but...

Wait.  Election.  Yeah, sorry.

Look, the time frame is the exact same for both Obama and Romney.  28 days.  Less by the time we publish this.  Whoever has more "easy" days between now and Election Day is the winner.   

Romney has had a campaign filled with a whole lot of bad days.  And the easy days he's had, he has paid for (except for debate night), or it feels like he's paid for it.  Spencerian Blue still feels like they're focused on the right things -- GOTV and organization.  

And that's going to determine who gets the ultimate "easy" day on Election Day: the guy who buys it, or the guy who organizes like hell to get it done.   

One quick post-script here, because there's been an awful lot of overly dramatic doom and gloom around Obama this week, and I think it's a bit much.  This, from Matthew Yglesias, ought to help keep things in perspective:

@mattyglesias

It's been such a bad week for Obama that he's been reduced to winning by his August margin: pic.twitter.com/dkuQShU5

Yes, after an awful week for Obama and an "easy" week for Romney, Obama now "only" has a 74.7% chance of winning, and a probable 302 electoral votes (as of this email to you).

It's a perspective I promise to keep if you will, Matt.  For me, it's easier when I watch a sleeping boy cuddle with his mommy, and a little girl, under the covers with her stuffed animals and her books, knowing that tomorrow I have another chance at an easy day.

Hug the kids.

BJK 

# # # #

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Ben -

It is interesting that you started this week with a family-centric post.  It reflects where I am with this election and, as you mentioned, where many Americans are focusing now as well.  I read your email and instantly made a connection between the two threads, whether you meant there to be one or not.  Family life - the small but wonderful moments of your 5 year old making your 6 month old laugh so hard that he spits sweet potato baby food all over the place, the less fun moments of a 2 year old tantrum over, well, pretty much anything - has a way of forcing the big picture right in front of your eyes.  Really, this is an extension of the "kitchen table" discussion that began last week.  

You are absolutely correct when you say that at some point an election becomes less about the shiny objects and flashing lights of daily talking points and quips and 30 second ads and gets very real and personal.  Ha ha, Romney is going to "fire Big Bird" (who doesn't work for PBS by the way - and Sesame Workshop has asked for the campaign to pull the ad.)  Oh no, Obama (and Ryan) stripped $716 Billion from Medicare to put it in Obamacare...  At some point it all becomes background noise.  All over the country, parents like you and Duncan and Erin and me are sitting down at the kitchen table after the kids are in bed and asking themselves some important questions.  Are we going to be able to afford a big Christmas this year?  Can we travel to see relatives for Thanksgiving?  What would we have to give up to make sure that Santa does his job well this year? 

If my family is safe, secure and prosperous, then the status quo isn't that bad.  If I'm fearful for my job, for my health insurance, for my ability to be able to afford gas, then I will probably take a much closer and less upbeat look at the people currently in power.  Sure, the Dow is up, but so is the number of Americans on food stamps.  Sure, unemployment is down some, but underemployment is up some as well.   Can Obama turn it around for my family?  Or is Romney a better bet?  If I don't think that things have gotten better over the past four years, am I willing to give the current administration another four?  

Campaigns matter.  Speeches are important.  Debates tell us a lot about our elected officials and those who want to take their places.  But none of that matters as much as whether or not I can pay my bills.  None of that matters as much as how safe my kids feel, or how good their schools are or what I can put on that kitchen table for dinner tomorrow.  

That is perspective.  

Get out the vote efforts, electoral college math, push polling, oversampling, polling switches from registered voters to likely voters, quips and fact-checks.  All good stuff and worthy of conversation.  But milk is $3.65 a gallon and we go through 3 or 4 gallons a week in my house.  Gas is about the same, and we go through quite a bit more of that.  What millions of Americans will be asking themselves this week is simple; who do I trust to turn the economy around and help my family the most?

Perhaps the most important result of last week's debate was not that Mitt bullied Jim Lehrer or that Obama seemed disinterested, but it was that Americans began to see Romney as human, as someone who might actually have something to say about their family's well being.  I think that, more than any policy position or quip or ending subsidies that eventually somewhat impact the ability to broadcast commercial free children's programming, is why the polls have narrowed again.  Voters may very well choose to move back toward POTUS.  In fact, they probably will.  The polling changes were most likely a bounce (which tends to fade) and not a slide for Obama (which tends to hold)...  

Either way, the pressure is ratcheting up on both sides for the final two debates.  

This week's VP debate is somewhat of an outlier.  These things usually have little to no impact on the final vote.  Still, it should be entertaining.  Joe Biden tends to say silly things - sometimes even ridiculous, dumb or offensive things. @SpencerianRed is most definitely underestimating him.  It is easy to forget that he was in the Senate for more years than I have been on this earth (and almost as many as Paul Ryan has.)  It would be a big mistake for Ryan to underestimate him.  

What, if anything, do you think will be the story coming out of the VP collision? 

Best to your family - and happy conversations at your kitchen table,

Matt

# # # #

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Matt -- 

First of all, what a strange week.

The conversation devolved from Wow, great debate performance (emphasis on "performance") Mitt Romney!  I wonder if it will move the poll numbers?  To Wow, those poll numbers sure are moving, to Holy crap, should Obama worry, to How much should Obama worry, to My god, I can't believe Obama's worrying, to Hey, nice job numbers -- but what's Obama going to do about his crappy debate peformance and the goddam polling?!?!?!!11One!, to Wait, what?  Big Bird?

It got meta, fast.  And in my view, that's no good -- for anyone.

Tell you what: this VP deal is starting right now.  Let's get the feel for it tonight, and see what we come up with tomorrow.  I'll publish our addendum thoughts on it tomorrow.

BJK 

 

# # # #

Welcome to Into the Echo Chamber, the weekly electronic conversation of the 2012 presidential campaign as viewed from two Twitter feeds.  Matt Spence is monitoring the Twitterverse of the Romney Campaign, Republicans, and the "red" side of the aisle at @SpencerianRed.  I am monitoring the tweets of the Obama Team, Democrats using @SpencerianBlue.  Our email-based back-and-forths are posted here on Thursdays.  

You are, as always, invited to join the discussion, either in the comments below or by emailing Spencerian Red or Spencerian Blue.

Into the Echo Chamber: It's a Debate Debate

Monday, October 1, 2012

Ben -

Here we are, Presidential Debate #1 week. After a lull, the march toward the election regains some juice this week. Let me first say that my most important rule for debate week is this: totally, absolutely, completely ignore anything that campaign staff, surrogates and candidates have to say about their opponent's debating skills, need for victory or anything else. Not one word is genuine and not one word is relevant. I promise you, each candidate will have exactly the amount of debate prep his handlers feel he needs and both sides have been working on lines, arguments and strategies for plenty of time. Both sides are competent and prepared. The result of the debate will not depend on how much sleep they got or what medicine they took. All that stuff is ancillary and pointless. Ignore it.

N the flip side, these debates do matter. They matter a great deal. For months now, the candidates have been able to get away with attack lines and generalities without much push back. Debate victories are born from effective push back. So the question becomes, who will be pushed to say something they would rather not? Will POTUS have to concede that the past four years have not gone as he would have wished and he has not been able to deliver on many of his promises? Will Romney have to answer for his taxes and disdain for the masses? Will the GOP nominee have to either embrace some very unpopular stances or distance himself from his running mate (and by extension, his own base)? Will the President have to answer what he meant when he talked about having more "space" to work with Putin after the election?

In my opinion, that last question is a potential Achilles heel. If there is a weakness in the President's armor it is that there is a strong undercurrent sentiment (not so undercurrent on @SpencerianRed, of course) that Obama, untethered from reelection ever again, will pivot hard to the left - on social policy, on foreign policy, on many things. I believe that it will be Romney's main objective to stoke that fear. He will try to make Obama II much more unpalatable than Romney I. He will jump on this week's "news" that if Hugo Chavez were able to vote, he would vote for Obama. He will remind people that the next president will likely appoint two or three Supreme Court justices. It could be an effective line of attack, to list all of the potential "beneficiaries" of an Obama re-elect. Can he succeed? He hasn't shown an ability to do so this point.... But who knows?

This is another stage, a totally different kind of stage than the one he underwhelmed on at the convention, and he did prove fairly effective in the latter half of the 73 GOP primary debates. Granted, he was going against the scrap heap and cartoon buffoon parade, but still. Aside from Chavez, this week has started with some paper cuts for the President. Fast & Furious (no, not the Vin Diesel/Michelle Rodriguez variety) is back in the news, clips of broken 2008 debate promises are making the rounds, etc. Nothing is assured five weeks out. The debates are the first stage for a shot at an October surprise (like, oh, say a bunch of defense contractors announcing tens of thousands of layoffs to come and blaming Obama)...

On the other hand, the polling and prediction tide is still massively on POTUS' favor. He has many built in advantages. I would love to hear what @SpencerianBlue is discussing as the debates approach.

Over to you,

Matt

# # # #

Monday, October 1, 2012

Matt -- 

To answer your question directly about the @SpencerianBlue feed and what they're saying as we begin Debate Week, it is still three words: organization, organization, organization.

...with the occasional ding against Romney/Ryan.  I confess to being impressed with the collective discipline SpencerianBlue seems to be following, here.  As we've talked about before, organizing and having a solid GOTV effort on the ground -- especially in those critical swing states -- is going to make it or break it for the Obama folks.  

Folks are even using the debates as an organizing opportunity:   

   The first debate is on Wednesday night—show your support              for the President by attending a watch              party: http://OFA.BO/UYwt6P 

Michelle Obama ‏@MichelleObama

...and by "folks" I clearly meant the First Lady of the United States.

Okay, confession time: I'm not really big on the debates.  I know, even after my nifty little story and reference from 1992 in our last back-and-forth, it's kind of a shocker. 

The truth is that for getting to the heart of who each candidate is and what they stand for -- and any detail whatsoever about what they'll do -- well, the debates ain't it.  Even worse than the conventions, actually.  At least at the conventions you get a sense of who the emerging leaders are in each party, what direction the party wants to go, and a sense of whether or not the candidate at the top of the ticket can actually communicate with you.

Everything I'm reading about these debates suggests that if Romney and Obama just show up, breathe oxygen, blink every now and then and perhaps avoid drooling on their ties, then it'll be a victory (Governor Christie's remarks notwithstanding).  There's nothing I hate worse than the lowering expectations game.  

But since this game is ubiquitous in the political arena, let me reluctantly join the band-wagon.

I've basically got my eyes on two different things, one for Obama, one for Romney.

For Obama, I think you're basically right.  Throughout this campaign, there's been some drip, drip, drips.  It's sort of nascent bad news -- not bad enough to knock him down, yet... but that's exactly the key word: "yet".  Troubles escalating and morphing in the Middle East.  Continued weak economic news here at home.  Even the stuff you wrote so passionately about earlier: the tragic shootings and violence around the country.  Even some of the stuff we wrote about with respect to the drone strike program in Pakistan.

When is there a straw that breaks the camel's back?  And will the straw come in the next thirty-something days?  

I suspect that's what Team Romney really meant when they said they were practicing "zingers" over the last couple of months as they prepared for the debates.  They're not looking for a new "straw" -- they're looking to make the straws they already have heavier.  

I think this is a dangerous strategy for two fairly obvious reasons: one, Mitt Romney is not known for his skillful delivery of, well, anything, much less zingers.  Two, if the straws -- those issues floating around President Obama right now -- haven't had any measurable impact to date, why would they just because Mitt Romney points them out?

Which leads me to what I'll be watching for with respect to Romney... and it's not how many "zingers" he can deliver.  It'll be the "human" factor.  Like the Conventions, the substance is almost secondary.

No, it actually is secondary (mostly).  Mitt needs to do something that I suspect most pundits would say is ridiculous: he needs to let his guard down.  He needs to relax.  He needs to, in the words of his wife, "unzip" (figuratively, please God).

He needs to perhaps, in the words of another guy who was the underdog -- and, admittedly, stayed the underdog -- shake his sould and let the glory out.

Indeed, Al Gore gave the best speech of his campaign -- one of the best of his political life only after that part of his life was all over.  

I wonder if it'll be too late for Mitt, too.

BJK 

# # # #

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Ben -

The economic straws may be at hand, but they may not be what the pundits are citing.  Every month, jobs numbers come out and are dissected and framed and windbagged to death on tv, radio, blogs and the like.  I think that those "jobs numbers" are a total abstraction to almost everyone but the political/media chatterers and do not really move the public perception needle.  Whether the economy added 105,000 seasonally-adjusted jobs or 155,000 seasonally adjusted jobs in September, and whether that is good enough or not quite good enough, is the ultimate in inside baseball.  Even the pundits have a hard time explaining what it means.  It is just a projection - often revised by 30% or more months down the road.  It is such an aggregate, detached piece of information that it has little real-world impact on voter preference.  But layoff notices... well, that is a different matter entirely.  Layoff notices are real.  They are terrifying.  They hit home in a way that unemployment figures and jobs numbers cannot.  It is the definition of a "kitchen table" issue.  And layoff notices could be the October Surprise that Romney so desperately needs.

Due to the "across the board" 9% sequestration-mandated cut that will indirectly affect federal employees, defense contractors and a wide swath of industries, there is a real and valid fear that the economy will contract and employers will be forced to lay off en masse.  The timing could be devastating.  If employers are to comply with federal law, those who fear that they will have to lay off workers as a result of the January 2 "fiscal cliff" will have to send notice to employees no later than November 2.  Yes, just days before the election.  ABC news ran a story about Lockheed Martin (a huge employer in the swing state of Virginia - and Florida too) grappling with the issue and the Obama administration basically giving them a waiver of the WARN Act (a law designed to give employees adequate notice of potential mass layoffs.)  In fact, the Administration has gone so far as to offer to cover liability for employers who may be sued for violating the Act.  

I don't care what side of the aisle you're on, that smells.  And it has the potential to make the cable to kitchen table jump that no other single economic story has during this election cycle.  

I wonder if Team Romney is holding off on this one until tomorrow, because it seems like they should be screaming about it.  Republican Senators certainly are: 

In a statement Friday, GOP Senators  John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte accused Obama of putting “his own reelection ahead of the interests of working Americans and our national security by promising government contractors that their salary and liability costs will be covered at taxpayer expense if they do not follow the law that requires advance warning to employees of jobs that may be lost due to sequestration. … Apparently, President Obama puts politics ahead of American workers by denying them adequate time to plan their finances and take care of their families. 

I am curious to see if this comes up at the debate, to see if Romney can string together a coherent argument about it.  POTUS better have a good answer for that one ready to go.  If not, the mini pendulum swing back toward a competitive election may continue this week.  The paper cuts I mentioned have been joined by a @SpencerianRed that seems to be energized in a new way this week.  Libya, the Elway endorsement to juxtapose the Chavez one for POTUS, Border Agent deaths, American servicemen deaths in Afghanistan topping 2,000, the advertizing binge of old Obama promises...  all supported by the "hey, don't write this thing off too soon" narrative that is writing itself and who knows what the landscape will look like in a few days.    

And then there's this... someone in the GOP is actually being creative for a change.  This is really a brilliant piece of political theater and has the potential to hammer home the "are you better off" question in a down-to-earth, kitchen table (again) way.  A potential straw #2 for the camel's back.  Selling gas for $1.84 (the average price when Obama took office) to a limited number of customers is a stroke of genius.  Also, without question the best and most beneficial use of campaign fundraising ever.  To think, they are actually using campaign funds to make life just a smidgen better for some people - and save them money.  Kudos to Americans for Prosperity - Michigan for the gimmick of the year.  

Can Romney capitalize?  Well, that has been the question for a year now, and the answer almost always seems to be no.  Then again, the answer always seemed to be no in the primaries and he won.  Is this what is propping up the current Romney staff?  Is this why he hasn't been pressured  to (or realized on his own that he needs to) dump the incompetents?  Good is the enemy of great, right?  He was good enough to beat the dregs of the GOP, but he needs to be great to beat Obama.  So far, we haven't seen it.  He has at least two tailor-made openings to do it in the debate.  

Can Romney paint this picture?

What say you, @SpencerianBlue?

Best to the family,

Matt

# # # # 

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Matt -- 

So, tonight tells the tale.

I'm actually going to try and avoid going overboard on any more analysis, here.  I think I know where you're coming from, and I basically think you're right: things could be lining up for an Obama disappointment.

There are a lot of indicators which ought to strike fear into the heart of Team Obama in Chicago.  At least... some fear.  

Because that's the thing: they're just indicators.  Yeah, layoff notices are real, and yes, the fiscal cliff is real.  Defense cuts and subsequent layoffs would surely be real.  

But one of two things are happening, Matt.  Either people are making a determination that yeah, things are still bad and, yeah, things may even be getting worse, but Mitt Romney as an alternative to Barack Obama is just unacceptable.  I think you'd have to say that if that is really true, then it is a reflection of the Romney Campaign.  And we can surely agree that the Romney folks have run a genuinely awful campaign.

The other is that people just aren't connecting the dots.

I want it to be the former (so does the Obama Campaign), but a better guess is that there's a mix.  

So to bring it back to the debates, I think we'll see an earnest, focused President Obama.  And we'll see Mitt on the attack.  

If Mitt can connect those dots -- paint that picture, as you say -- then he's re-opened that window of opportunity most folks think is closing (or has closed).  

If he doesn't and the President effectively reassures us things will get better -- and how -- then next week we may be talking about just how nailed shut that window really is.

One last side-note on this: I'll probably have the debate on, but I'm going to try and follow along on Twitter, Facebook and some blogs.  I'll be curious to see how it plays out in the world of social media, something not a lot of folks have talked about.  You know, Nixon actually beat Kennedy in their debate -- if you listened to the radio.  But if you watched it on TV, everyone said Kennedy won.  

I wonder who will come out on top in these new(ish) mediums?

Enjoy.

BJK

# # # #  

Welcome to Into the Echo Chamber, the weekly electronic conversation of the 2012 presidential campaign as viewed from two Twitter feeds.  Matt Spence is monitoring the Twitterverse of the Romney Campaign, Republicans, and the "red" side of the aisle at @SpencerianRed.  I am monitoring the tweets of the Obama Team, Democrats using @SpencerianBlue.  Our email-based back-and-forths are posted here on Thursdays.  

You are, as always, invited to join the discussion, either in the comments below or by emailing Spencerian Red or Spencerian Blue.

Into the Echo Chamber: One Way Out

Sunday, September 23, 2012

Matt -- 

First, I've come to understand your beloved Florida State Seminoles beat the Clemson Tigers this weekend by a decisive 49 - 37.  I offer you congratulations, and a jaunty, politically incorrect (downright offensive, actually), Seminole chop.  As you know, I'm not much of a college football fan, so I apologize if my gesture of goodwill carries less meaning than it should.  Of course, my non-sports engaged brain immediately went to politics and wondered how I could draw a parallel I'd likely come to regret when in the next dispatch you expounded ad infinitum upon the point beyond my understanding, or linked to a D-list rap star.  Or both.

I wonder if we can compare Team Obama to Florida State and Romney to Clemson.  I admit, I got this notion from the first paragraph of that Yahoo! Sports article linked above:

For three weeks, Florida State had to answer questions about how it would respond when it went up against an equally talented team, what would happen when the Seminoles faced an opponent that punched as hard as they had punched their first three games.

The assumption at the outset was that Obama and Romney were equally matched, though I also noted that Florida State went into the game ranked Number 4 to Clemson's Number 10 ranking.  (They both came to the game undefeated, a phenomenon only enjoyed in the sporting world, and that's where my analogy breaks down a bit, so let's just keep move along.)   

Perhaps we could give -- and indeed have given -- Obama some advantage of incumbency.  A six point spread?  I'm not so sure, but it's an imperfect analogy being made by a guy who pretty much doesn't know what he's talking about.  There was a lot of weight being given to Romney... well, the Republicans because of the enormous money advantage they have continued to enjoy with respect to superPAC raising and spending.  And to be fair, there was considerable weight given to them by virtue of the fact that the tea partiers drove so many to victory just two years ago -- their presence in this race cannot be discounted.  

What's more, the Republicans -- "Clemson" -- came to the game with a huge advantage: a crappy economy and jobs picture.  I'm not sure what the equivalent advantage for the actual Clemson was in the football scenario -- maybe none.  As a winning message for Republicans, it has been squandered by the nominee.  It didn't have to be that way.  

Indeed, I understand that Clemson racked up a pretty healthy lead going into the third quarter.

But then something happened.  Florida State racked up a ton of offensive yards, their quarterback passed for a career-high 380 yards, including two touchdowns.  

For much of the game, it looked early on like Clemson had cracked the code for the vaunted Florida State defense.  But when Florida State turned on the offense, it was all over.  Clemson couldn't keep up, they were kept back on their heels, scrambling, and it was all over.

There has been an assumption at the outset that the Republicans and Romney would be an "equally talented team," and what I think we've seen is that they are, well, not.  Yes, like Clemson, they have been able to make some pretty good jabs and force Team Obama onto defense -- which, we can perhaps agree, hasn't actually been as spectacular as we might've thought.  

But no matter.  The Obama Campaign has built an offense juggernaut -- early -- and has kept the Romney folks running to keep up.

What's more, they know this isn't a game.  This is real life, and this election is critically important.  Last time you said "run up the score" -- high step it to the end-zone.  The trick, in my mind, for Team Obama, is to find that sweet spot -- it's a tipping point, actually.  

It is the place where the balance shifts, and the avalanche of support not only sweeps Obama back into office in a landslide, but drives other Democrats into office as well.  I don't know what the football equivalent of that is, but like I said, this isn't a game.  Obama isn't Florida State.

Romney isn't Clemson.

He's more like the Arkansas Razorbacks.*

Over to you.  Please.  I beg you.  Don't overdo it on the sports stuff.

Best to everyone.

BJK

*With apologies to my sister, mother and father -- U of A graduates all -- and my whole family, who are Razorback fans.  I'm sorry.  It was a cheap shot... but for the good of the blog.  Which I think we can all agree is equally cheap.

# # # #

Monday, September 24, 2012

Ben -

Let me begin by saying that the Seminole Tribe of Florida is a big part of FSU.  Not just as a "downright offensive" mascot and chant as you called it, but as a true, willing and supportive partner with the University.  In fact, a few years ago, the NCAA started making schools drop Native American mascots out of political correctness.  They explicitly exempted FSU from that ruling because of the advocacy and support of the Tribe.  There are many aspects of the unique nature of the Seminole Tribe that are honored at FSU, including being the only tribe to never sign a treaty of surrender or peace with the US Government.  


As for the football talk, I appreciate the effort, really I do.  And you are right, there are many parallels that can be drawn.  But in reality, I think it really comes down to one thing, best expressed by the greatest campaign slogan of all time, "Enough of the bullshits, time for ACTION."

Basically, the best defense in the nation was terrible for the first half - in part because there were some weak spots to exploit (jobs, unemployment, welfare rolls) and in part because of several well-timed trick plays (twisting "you didn't build that", the VP selection) but that sort of thing doesn't last for 60 minutes of football and talent usually wins out.  And about 5 minutes into the second half, FSU said "enough" and started laying the wood to them, asserting their will.  Coming out of the conventions, OFA did the same.  So despite the early surge, Romney/Clemson could not sustain under the weight of better players - of the football and political variety.  

Finally, Obama seems to be reaching a point where everything they throw at him is bouncing off.  What comes next is the Knockout blow.  So my question to you is what is Obama's knockout blow?  Is it a well timed new catch phrase during a debate?  Is it Romney saying yet another really stupid thing about the great unwashed masses?  Is it another international incident that reveals a gulf of gravitas between the candidates?  

I would love to hear some guesses.

Best,

Matt

# # # #

Monday, September 24, 2012

Matt -- 

Ah, the knockout punch.  

Yeah, I don't know.  I hate to be contrarian on this, because I can come up with so many.  Personally, I'd like to see a series of ads come out about two, maybe three weeks out from Election Day.  There would be a string of them -- more than three, but not more than five or six.  

And they would be the nicest, most joyful, happiest, positive ads you've ever seen.  

And none of them would have President Obama in them (save for the requisite "I'm Barack Obama and I approved this message").  

And none of them would be too heavy policy-wise -- but they would relate to specific policy measures.  

Happy, almost bouncy music.  The lighting on these is key -- something almost too bright.  Even, like lens flares and stuff.  Almost Muppet Movie opening scene kind of happy.

Holy shit, wait: what if Muppet Barack Obama did an ad.  Okay, let's table that one for right now, but I definitely want to come back to that concept.  

The theme of each ad would be "Moving America Forward" or "Ready to Move Forward" or something like that.

Hi, my name is Bobby Richards, and I'm a teacher in Akron, Ohio.

[Kids surrounding Mr. Richards in his classroom like he's a god. And don't rob me of my lens flare.]

I'm working hard for these kids.  Every day.

[Find the cutest kid in the room. Make sure he's behind his desk and smiling like a maniac for a couple of seconds.]

Bobby VO:  I believe we need to move the country forward.  It's time. [Standing at the chalkboard teaching shit. Pot up the background sound just a hair, so you know he's serious.]

[Close-up on Bobby's face] Thousands of new teachers?  Strengthening our education system by focusing on what these kids need?  [Smile, Bobby, smile]  There's only one way forward for America.  That's with President Obama.  

[Walking with kids out of the schoolhouse doors at the end of the day, waving and smiling, smiling, smiling]  President Obama is working for these kids. So let's work together with him and get America moving forward.

[I'm Barack Obama and I approved this message...]

Or something along those lines.  You get the general idea.  School teacher.  First responder.  A veteran, maybe.  Construction worker.  GM factory floor guy, definitely.  

That would be the "knockout punch" for this reason: because there is truly only one antidote to the ocean of negativity we haven't even begun to see, yet.  The Romney and Republican superPACs are going to flood the air with it.  Now imagine, if you will, an ad so positive, an ad so blatantly happy -- one which presents such a contrast to that ocean of negativity -- you just have to watch it.  

That right there is a home-run.  

With that being said, I want to just poke at your premise a little bit: a knockout punch assumes we have a knockout punch kind of president.  Remember, this is the guy who has confounded Republicans and raised some eyebrows by "leading from behind" -- a concept I'm am both fascinated with and respect greatly.  I don't wonder if it doesn't frustrate you a little bit, actually.  

You can't look at that picture of Obama and the whole team in the White House Situation Room on the night the SEAL Team took out Osama bin Laden and not draw conclusions about the man's leadership style.  I think it's amazing.  

And, of course, it says something about his campaign style, too.  There's not going to be a knockout punch -- at least not one you see coming.  Obama's not a punch-to-the-face kind of guy.  More to the point, he's not the kind of guy who would land on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit and (prematurely) stand in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner.  

This was a death by a thousand cuts.  This was slow, and it was deliberate, and it makes you believe every single hardcore thing you ever heard about Chicago politics.  A single knockout punch would be too merciful.  

I think they go right up to Election Day, and the day after, when the blood finally starts to coagulate around the campaign, the Romney people can finally ask the question every losing campaign always asks, as if they didn't know: what in the hell happened?  

What about you?  Any October surprises?

BJK 

# # # #

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Ben -

Interesting theory - that Obama isn't a knockout punch guy.  Not sure I buy it.  But then again, all of these sports analogies are imperfect.  In truth, there really isn't such a thing as a knockout in politics.  Look at Todd Akin hanging around in Missouri as the perfect example.  But without a knockout from the guy in the lead, there's always a chance the guy coming from behind can win.  Romney's folks are still hopeful - not confident like they were in the summer, but hopeful.  Maybe because they, too, do not see Obama as a guy with a knockout punch.

On the other hand, I completely agree with you about the positivity.  That's the real reason why POTUS is yukking it up with Whoopi, Letterman and the rest.  He needs to build that good will (and personal approval %) now, because the debates are coming up.  They will be fierce.  They will be testy.  They will show that Obama gets frustrated when people are being disingenuously obtuse, when they are twisting his words and cherry-picking facts to paint a bleak picture of the past four years.  He may get a little snippy, a little lecture-y and a little bit impatient.  If I were on Team Romney, that is exactly what I would be needling for.  I would want to knock the President off his happy, hopey pedestal and then immediately turn a stern word or dismissive remark into a web ad - and if it is good enough, into some big money commercials.  Overlay it with the general American sense of frustration about a lagging recovery and stagnant economy.  If there is a game change, it is more likely to be something like that - a misstatement that supports a larger narrative that is splashed everywhere and just slowly eats away at POTUS's margin.  

As for the debates, the expectations-setting game has already begun.  @SpencerianRed is already calling BS on the mainstream media for "promoting storylines" about Obama's unpreparedness (you know, cause he's off being President) and Romney's debating skill (because he got in a few dozen slap-fights with GOP also-rans) in the LA Times.  In fact, the narrative seems to be that the debates are Romney's last chance at a "game changer" and that otherwise he will lose.  Probably true, and at least as far as narratives go, definitely self-fulfilling.  

What do you think?  Can Romney do well enough in the debates to turn things around?  How will they play out?  Will the President stumble?  Will Romney actually be a better debater?  Will the VP debate matter at all - since we are much more likely to see a gaffe there?

Curious to hear your thoughts on a slow news week.

Best,

Matt  

# # # #

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Matt -- 

I remember watching the debates in the fall of 1992 in the Clinton/Gore Transition Headquarters (it's a sort of open secret that presidential transitions get under way well before Election Day.  They have to.  There's simply not enough time to get up and running between Election Day and the Inauguration.).  There were just a handful of us, including my boss, an attorney from New York named Seth Harris (who now happens to be the Deputy Secretary at the Department of Labor), and the evening had the air of a party.  Which I suppose, in a way, it kind of was.

At this point, I would suspect more people would remember the SNL parody of those particular debates more than the real debates.  Everybody loved Dana Carvey's George Bush, and it was a clever trick they pulled off on live TV since he was Ross Perot, too.  (And if you skip to about the four minute twenty second mark in that SNL link, you'll see the first idea for the 3:00 AM ad.  Who knew Bill and Hillary gleaned their campaign ad ideas from watching old SNL clips?)  I always though Phil Hartman's Bill Clinton was one of the best presidential impersonators the show ever had.     

Of course, the best part applicable today is the SNL tag-line: "Debate 92: The Challenge To Avoid Saying Something Stupid."

I suppose that's usually the deal with debates.  Avoid saying something stupid.  And it's why I think these debates will be fairly tame by comparison to other debate -- and why, though at this point President Obama has more to lose, they are still riskier for Mitt Romney.

In 1992, President Bush made the fatal error of looking at his watch while Clinton answered a question during one of the debates.  Doesn't sound like that big a deal, but it was all anyone could talk about the next day.

When it happened, I still remember looking at Seth and saying, "Holy crap!  He just looked at his watch!  What the hell does he need to know the time for?  Does he have dinner reservations somewhere?"  

Given his track record on this campaign, Romney would be more prone to a "watch checking" moment -- or something equally dumb.  Like sighing through the whole thing.  Or use the word "lockbox".  

I fear this alone will make for boring debates (my caveat here is the VP debates, which, given the presence of Joe Biden alone, promise to make them a cornucopia of rhetorical savory goodness).  Mitt is going to try and not say or do something crazy, like say how he likes being able to fire people, or bet Obama $10,000, or inform us that corporations are people, my friend.  Or sing Who Let The Dogs Out.

That being said, I suspect a lot of the prep for Romney has been around avoiding that exact thing.  Try and be human, Mitt.

As he has been for most of this campaign, Romney is in a tough box, because even if he keeps his head down and stays boring and on-message, he's going to have President Obama laying trap after trap for him.  For me, I'll be watching to see if he takes the bait on Medicare, and given his dangerous (though admittedly interesting) pivot towards "Romneycare" today, on the Affordable Care Act as well.  In an irony, though, after a year-plus of campaigning on the economy and jobs, what may make for the most interesting stuff is anything to do with foreign policy.  

As for Obama, as we all know, the guy is pulling away in some key polls, so like I said, he has the most to lose in a poor -- or even mediocre -- debate performance.  My guess is the Obama Debate strategy is two-fold.  One, continue with the "relaxed guy theme.  This is fun, Mr. President!  He needs to be in that state of mind and absolutely, under no circumstances, get side-tracked into "professor" mode, which could happen.  It wouldn't be a disaster for him, but it would definitely turn people off.

Two, he needs to be smarter than Mitt by a couple of degrees.  In other words, it's sort of Obama versus Bush (George W. Bush, that is) in a way: the Constitutional scholar and community organizer versus the aloof CEO.  

I'll admit it, Matt: it's a fine line he's got to walk.  

But in all of this, we're talking about the least common denominator.  If an opportunity comes, I have every confidence that Obama will recognize it and Mitt will have no clue what's right in front of him.  

I still remember it like it was yesterday, Matt, I really do.  George H. W. Bush, the President of the United States, gave a half-assed answer to a question from a woman in the audience and then brushed her off.  She had asked him how the terrible economy had affected him personally.  He couldn't answer it, got frustrated, and, mumbling platitudes, sulked back to his seat.  

Clinton was already up off the stool.  He ignored the moderator and engaged the woman in the audience directly.  

Bill Clinton gave a damn good forty-five minute (or so) speech at the Convention the other night.  But his one minute and forty-five second answer to that woman in a debate in 1992 is, to my mind, still one of the brightest moments of his entire political career.  And when he turned to go back to his seat, I will remember for all the days of my life the brief second we all sat in that transition headquarters, shocked, in silence, stunned... and then erupted into wild, hysterical cheers.  

Will a moment like that one present itself?  We'll see soon enough, I suppose.

Best to Erin and the boys.

BJK

# # # #

Welcome to Into the Echo Chamber, the weekly electronic conversation of the 2012 presidential campaign as viewed from two Twitter feeds.  Matt Spence is monitoring the Twitterverse of the Romney Campaign, Republicans, and the "red" side of the aisle at @SpencerianRed.  I am monitoring the tweets of the Obama Team, Democrats using @SpencerianBlue.  Our email-based back-and-forths are posted here on Thursdays.  

You are, as always, invited to join the discussion, either in the comments below or by emailing Spencerian Red or Spencerian Blue.

Into the Echo Chamber: Loud and Incoherent, Largely Pointless and a Little Bit Catchy

Monday, September 17, 2012

Ben -

Things are going to be a little weird for me this week. My wife is visiting her mother and took the baby. It will just be me and the two older boys. We are less than 24 hours in and we have already drawn blood (a scraped knee), so her concerns about everyone's health and welfare are probably valid. She stocked us up with provisions - something called vegetables? - and said a prayer. In other words, she seems to be far better prepared than anyone on Mitt Romney's campaign team.

The talk of the weekend was about two things - dissension within the Romney Camp and pivoting the message to the base. Somehow it passes as a revelation that Romney will need his base to turn out in order to defeat Obama. Really? The guys who has been running for President for five years is just now realizing that turnout of the base will matter? Wow.

We have long thought that this election would be a referendum on Obama and the biggest question would be the GOP's ability to fire up and turn out those who oppose him. We thought that in the wake of the 2010 midterms. We thought that through the GOP parade of fools primary process. It amuses me that the media/Camp Romney are just now rediscovering that. In a nation with a sorry record of voter participation, turnout often defines election cycles. Chicago knows this and has been BillyBeaneing their way to reelection for some time now. If Romney's camp is truly, really just discovering this and addressing it we are looking at a blue landslide -- 330 plus electoral votes.

It is my guess that this is actually an attempt to explain away the R&R inability to gain traction in the polls by blaming strategy and not inherent candidate weakness. Mitt has always been an underwhelming nominee and it appears that the campaign team is finally realizing that they may be behind the 8 ball here.

However, these things always come with an asterisk. And what is going on in the middle east right now is a big, fat asterisk. If this unrest and instability does not wane by the end of the week, POTUS is looking at some serious instability in the ability to project the outcome of the election. Mideast politics are not my bailiwick, so I will leave the prognostication to others. I just know that you are adding in some serious volatility to the equation.

Another, for now smaller, asterisk is the teacher's strike going on in Chicago. Obama has avoided this one like the plague and I am sure that Axe and Gibbs and the Blue side is fervently praying for this thing to go away. In fact, I would bet that there is some (probably unwelcome) communication coming from OFA to Rahm pushing for this to go away. It is bad for Obama either way. This one is the definition of a lose-lose for him. If he speaks it in favor of the union, he is siding against kids and reform (including many that are championed by his own Secretary of Education, the guy who used to oversee the contract that expired, precipitating this mess). If he supports the district, he is alienating one of his most reliable and dependable bases of support - and potentially affecting the turnout of his base.... I could go all wonky on you and get into the policy details of last in, first out and teacher tenure and the like, but I won't. This conversation is about the election and a lingering teacher strike in POTUS's home town is not at all good news for him.

Oh, that and 30 more people were murdered there this weekend. Thank God the Democrats honored Gabby Giffords by proposing some serious gun control legislation to help police address it. What? They didn't? They just paraded her out as a cynical prop for the pledge of allegiance at the DNC but did nothing at all to address why she became such an emotional mascot? Oh, sorry. Never mind. We are supposed to pretend that letting her lead the pledge honored her and that attempting to prevent something like that from happening again is ancillary. Gotcha. My bad. Forget I said anything. It wasn't cynical. It wasn't a sham. Gotcha. I'll stay on message.

And with that rant, I think it is probably a good time to hand the baton off to you, sir.

Give us your best "get out the vote" story!

Best,

MBS

# # # #

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Matt -- 

A fairly derisive comment regarding Gabby Giffords participation at the Democratic Convention, Matt, and a little more cynically scornful than you usually deliver.

The woman was shot in the head with a legally purchased firearm by a man so clinically insane it has taken months to pump him full of enough drugs to arrive at a point where he actually understands what he did -- and to plead guilty to it.

To my mind, though, the most cynical part of your last paragraph there is two-fold.  One, the idea that Obama and the Democrats should solely own the debate around guns and gun control, and that the lack of any action around this issue rests entirely with them is vaguely offensive.  Nonetheless, there's only one party platform which called for the re-instatement of the Clinton-era assault weapons ban.  Here's a hint: it is not the party which, as you well know, Matt, would have blocked via the John Boehner-led House of Representatives any Democratic-authored bill which might have begun to address the unforgivable domestic slaughter via the overabundance of guns in our cities and across the nation to which we bear witness.  

Second is the embarrassing notion that if we just had "serious gun control legislation" -- versus, one is to assume, silly gun control legislation -- that we could eliminate or even curb those thirty Chicago murders, and so many more just like them.  Really?  Really?  As you well know, considering and debating "serious gun control legislation" in addressing the proliferation of guns -- and, more to the point, the tragic murders in places like Chicago -- is only a piece (albeit an important piece) of the larger answer to a more complex problem.  

And it is one I'd be willing to bet we'll see in a second Obama Administration, because, hey, maybe we need to face facts: this whole "campaign" thing isn't working out for Mitt Romney.

For the record, the @SpencerianBlue side is split between cautious optimism that the Romney Campaign will continue to suffer from catastrophic unforced errors at the hand of the man at the top of the ticket, and the organizers who know that getting out the vote will be critical.

This is one area I think has the potential to generate a lot of news: voting.  Republicans have undertaken a number of efforts to "address voter fraud" -- which, of course, is code for voter suppression.  Florida, sorry to say, has lead the way on these efforts.  In good news, similar efforts to restrict the vote in Ohio and Pennsylvania have been thwarted.  

No one is questioning that Romney and Republicans are the clear beneficiaries with the high dollars rolling into the super PACs.  They'll be dominant in the air wars.  

Obama's strength is organizing -- and you can be sure OFA and the street-level teams across the country will be tested to see if that is still the case.  

So can a solid ground game beat the back-to-back-to-back ads we'll get over the next fifty days?  I hold the view that it can, if properly executed.  But I also know that Republicans will do whatever it takes to change the rules in the middle of the game.    

For the record, I agree that over the course of the next fifty days, just about anything could happen.  Much is happening in the Middle East.  I suspect Obama will be able to (largely) avoid the Chicago teacher's strike, but that doesn't mean there won't be something like it in the next fifty days.  Another global conflict to resolve.  Another teacher's strike.

Another effort by Republicans to suppress a right as old as the Republic itself.  

Another 30 dead in Chicago.  Or sixty.  Or a hundred.  Or a thousand.  

Maybe, if we work hard, and with a little bit of luck, we'll be able to do something about that in the next four years.  

Back to you.

BJK

# # # # 

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

 Ben -

What over the past four years has given you any indication that either party will do a single thing about gun control?  I am baffled that you think something will happen in the next four.  My point was not to deride the Democrats.  Heck, it is exactly what I would have done.  I would have invited Gabby Giffords too.  But I would have followed it with someone - even a backbencher from a safe congressional seat -  to at least address guns in America.  

Yes, my tone was more cynical than usual on that one.  I think that in a summer that has seen Aurora and Wisconsin mass shootings - and Texas and New York ...  the list goes on and on - it is not acceptable to pretend that firearms have nothing to do with American citizens, elected officials, worshippers, movie goers, bosses and exes getting shot.  Or that it isn't a public safety issue.  Or that nothing can be done.  Nothing will be done, but that isn't the same thing as throwing in the towel and saying nothing can be done.  As a Gen X poet once said, "That's just the way it is..."  (Interesting to read the lyrics "we ain't ready to see a Black President" - released a decade before we apparently were ready, but lyrics only heard posthumously because, wait for it... he was shot to death.)

Of course the GOP is batshit insane on the issue of guns.  Nobody argues that.  The NRA scare tactics have won.  I wasn't attacking Democrats because I felt they were on the wrong side of the issue and someone else was on the right side of it.  Exactly the opposite.  I was frustrated because that moment was the ultimate bully pulpit.  It was a perfect opportunity to take a principled stand.  Dangerous for someone's political career?  Sure.  Too bad there weren't any party elders around - or mid-sixties Vice Presidents - who could have said something without political repercussions.  Oh, nevermind.  I know this is a losing argument.  Nobody has the political courage to address the fact that we kill each other at an astonishing rate.  

But that is all sideshow to the Romney meltdown currently in progress.  Aside from writing off 47% of the American population (whether they realize they were written off or not is another story) what is so jarring about what he said is that he basically argued for raising taxes on half of America.  Wonder how ol' Grover Norquist feels about that one...  

It is amazing to me how terrible of a nominee the GOP selected.  Romney is almost writing Saturday Night Live skits about himself now.  I wonder how often Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels and the rest of the could-have-been crew just shake their heads in disgust and regret sitting this one out.  Almost anyone would be light years ahead of where Romney is right now.  Almost any other republican could have exploited Obamacare better.  Almost any other republican could have capitalized on "you didn't build it" better.  Almost any other republican could have jumped on the jobless numbers, the right direction/wrong direction dynamic, the "are you better off" theme, etc. better than Mitt Romney and his band of fools.  

Ben, can you remember a more inept campaign?  Do you have to go back to Dukakis?  Even Kerry's people weren't this bad - they were just unprepared for the Swiftboating and slow to respond.  He was always fighting a serious headwind.  Mitt is not.  Unless there is a game changer in the next 40-whatever days, I think we are looking at a long, slow slide into oblivion (and a Scrooge McDuck money pool) for Mitt Romney.  And really, there's no excuse for it.  He's been preparing for five years.  He's got all the money in the world to hire the best of the best.  The sheer lack of a gameplan almost makes him unfit for office.  If he sucks this bad at building a campaign apparatus, how terrible would he be at running an administration?

The unraveling of the GOP is going to be the most fascinating story of the next two months for me.  And @SpencerianRed gives me a ringside seat.  Joe Scarborough has jumped in to take the first bite.  Peggy Noonan called for an intervention in the Wall Street Journal. I bet that the religious right will be the next to go.  The Ryanophile deficit hawks will probably not be too far behind - unsourced quotes about the VP nominee's lack of influence, "off script" slight "gaffes" of disagreement with the top of the ticket at VP events, and finally, distancing in the final days to preserve 2016. 

I know that this isn't exactly something you look for, but can you think of anything that could turn the election back around toward competitive?  Would a serious gaffe by Obama in a debate be enough?  Would more dead Americans overseas do it?  Would a jump in the unemployment numbers do it (two more reports to come before the election)?  

I just don't see it.  I don't see Romney and his current crop of handlers making this thing truly competitive.  They need to win Ohio, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina and Wisconsin to have a shot at 270.  Take out Wisconsin and you need Colorado, Nevada, Iowa or New Hampshire to get there.  If Romney can't win Florida, he needs every single one of those states.  Shoot, you do the map.  Any way you slice it, the electoral math is tough for Romney.  He basically needs a swing state sweep.  We are so far away from a place where I could envision that...  it almost takes the fun out of things.  

The weirdest thing is that @SpencerianRed seems oblivious.  I know that OFA is not.  You have made the case convincingly over the past few Into the Echo Chamber conversations that they are keenly aware of the electoral map.  Team Boston seems to not know what to do - to not have a strategy.  Peggy Noonan thinks they should campaign en masse.  Romney, Rubio, Ryan, Jeb, Daniels all touring like some mutant version of the Blue Collar Comedy Tour.  But the map is too diluted.  9 toss-up states.  If it were me in charge, I would park Romney and Rubio together in Florida with the occasional trip to New Hampshire.  I would have Ryan rotate between Ohio, Wisconsin and Iowa.  I would send Jeb to Nevada and Colorado - with some time in Florida and Virginia.  I would have Ann in Virginia and North Carolina.  

I would totally revamp Mitt's stump speech.  I would have him talk about God, extensively.  I would have him go into detail about Bain and how he built his business.  I would have him tell stories about his wife and kids and grandkids.  And I would co-opt "forward".  I would have him talk about all the ways that GOP policies would be "forward" for America.  It doesn't matter whether or not the policies are actually forward-looking.  They aren't.  But I would have him come up with a line about how he agrees with the president, that the country does need to move forward, but that they need to leave the current administration and their unemployment, deficit spending, entitlement culture behind.  

It is a message that could win... if Jeb were delivering it.

How would you fix the Romney campaign (without jettisoning the nominee)?

Give my best to the family,

MBS

# # # # 

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Matt --

No.

No!

This cannot stand.  I will not let it stand.

You have spat on hallowed ground, forsaken an unbreakable covenant, tarnished a shining, bold legacy.  Thumbed your nose at the sacred bond.

What hell hath thou wrought, Matthew Spence?  

For you have linked to a rapper (and a non-holographic one at that) and irresponsibly quoted from whom he sampled.  I sentence you to the entire four minutes and thirty-nine seconds of the timeless Bruce Hornsby & The Range classic, "The Way It Is," from which Tupac filched for his "poetry".

In seriousness, I was looking a bit too hard in your last -- well crafted -- response as it relates to the gun issue, and was looking for something that's not there.  The last four years, as we know, have given us nothing -- from either party -- with respect to real and serious gun control.  The real answer to your question, though -- "What over the past four years has given you any indication that either party will do a single thing about gun control?" -- is present in the eight Clinton years: the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, featuring (but not limited to, by any means) the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which did an awful lot more than that sub-name suggests.  

There's a brief aside on this, and it's a point of pride with me: I worked for the Drug Czar at the time the Crime Bill was signed into law.  Then it was Dr. Lee P. Brown.  He doesn't get a lot of the credit he should, but he was a crucial "fouding father" of community policing.  Community policing is one of those creative, innovative initiatives -- which has since been criticized -- that lead to dramatic reductions in crime during the Clinton years.

So when you and I talk about "gun control" -- and hold out hope for the Obama Second Term -- I do hope we (and the folks in the Administration) are able to think creatively about what that really means.

Now let's re-design the Romney Campaign without jettisoning the nominee.  This will be fun! 

First of all, fire everbody.  Everybody.  There needs to be a bloodletting, and it needs to be swift and it needs to be public.  Campaign manager, media teams, all gone.  Pretty much there only needs to be the folks in the phone bank and the mail room.  That's all that should be left.  Anyone else is out.

Second, if I were Romney, I would cut a series of ads -- maybe three (after hiring a new ad firm, of course).  The ads would essentially be this:

Ad number one: It's Romney in one of his living rooms -- whichever one is most warm and inviting.  Lots of yellow.  He'll need Ann there, but she shouldn't say anything.  He needs to wear a sweater, one of those semi-goofy holiday ones.  Ridiculous, but not too ridiculous.  I'm thinking a gray cardigan with a subtle pattern.  No tie.  Do not wear a tie, Mitt Romney. 

Lots of warm close-ups, lots of affectionate looks from Ann to Mitt.  Lots of pictures of the  grandkids in the background.    

 I don't know exactly what he says -- it almost doesn't matter, actually.  Something about his deep love of America.  Something about his deep concern for the direction of the country.  Doesn't have to be specific.  Just a very warm "I love America" kind of ad.  This, after he fires everyone, will be done to re-establish him as, you know, human.

Ad number two is a little different.  It's Mitt Romney walking around somewhere hard-hit by the recession.  I want to say downtown Detroit, but I'm only half-joking when I say that I'm not sure his Secret Service detail would go for it.  After all, our discussion about the prevalence of guns and murders in inner cities is certainly no joke.  Given his roots, Michigan would be nice, though.

This is the I'm-Serious-About-Policy ad.  Again, the content is almost unnecessary.  He needs to cite some real statistics about unemployment and jobs.  He needs to use the P-word, or it doesn't work: poverty.  This is a pivotal ad.  Whereas the first one is designed to re-introduce him as a carbon-based life form of the planet Earth, this one is designed to show he actually gives a shit about life for most of us in America.  

Is this actually possible given that he apparently really doesn't?  I don't know, but you asked me to try, so this is what I got.

It should end with him on the verge of tears.  No actual tears, but people should walk away going, Son of a goddam bitch, was he going to actually cry?  That, or he's about to put his fist through a wall.  He's concerned.  He troubled.  He's pissed as hell, and he's not going to take it anymore.  

Before I get to number three, I'd interject one more thing they have to do -- and this really is a bridge too far, but we're playing in fantasyland, here, so go with it: come up with viable policy proposals, some of which may actually piss off some in the GOP.  

It's right here that I'd have the team buy www.StoptheFiscalCliff.Com (or something like it), and start detailing how he's going to avert the fiscal cliff the country is speeding towards shortly after the election.  

Telling everyone to go to that website ought to be the second-to-last-thing Romney says in every ad going forward (before "I'm Mitt Romney and I approved this message.")

The last ad would be a total jiu-jitsu move.  It's Mitt Romney.  He's gotten plenty of rest, and the lighting is a little harsh.  He is in a board room, at the head of a very expensive conference table.  There is no one else at the table.  The room is immaculate.  Cleaner than clean.  There are no distractions.  None.  He is looking at the camera with that creepy stare he has.  It is nothing but him.  Him and you.  At the conference table.

And he's got something to tell you.  Yes, I was the CEO of a major corporation.  We were very successful.  We need to make America successful again -- and right now, that's not happening.  

Hard.  Pointed.  Clear.  I would want him to say that things in America are getting bad... and if we re-elect Barack Obama, they'll get worse.  

I want the $10,000 suit to look immaculate, perfect, almost impossible.  I want to see the light glint off the gold cuff links when he points at the camera.  I want to see the crease at his eyes when he squints as if to tell me he's not fucking around.  I want the tie to have the perfect knot, and I want the pattern to punch you right in the eyeball -- not because it's so crazy, but because it means business. 

That's probably what I'd call that particular spot, at least internally: "I'm Mitt Romney, and I'm Not Fucking Around."  

They tried Ann's Lovable Goofball, and the shit didn't work.  He needs to run for Ass-Kicker-in-Chief.

And that's about all he's got: re-introduce himself to America as human, make sure people know he gets it about all the poors, show that he is CEO of Kicking Ass and Taking Names, and then do nothing but say Obama put us on track to a fiscal disaster, and he's got a plan.

Call it the Going to Hell in a Bucket Campaign Plan. 

And even that may not be enough, Matt.  In fact, it likely wouldn't.  But it's what I'd do for sure.

Alright.  So there you go.  How do you think Obama would respond to that?

Tell Erin to travel safe, and best to the boys.

BJK

# # # #

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Ben -

Damn, that is good.  I think you just elected Mitt Romney.  Congratulations.  

How would I respond if I were calling the shots for Team Obama?  Actually, I would do pretty much what they are doing now.  A great offense doesn't have to be playing a great defense to still be a great offense.  And what Chicago is doing right now is playing great offense.  What is the saying, I sing to a stone as easily as to another singer?  Well, Axe and the boys are singing to a stone right now.

While Mitt has to prove his humanity, POTUS is yukking it up with Letterman and getting bear hugs from registered Republican small business owners.  While Mitt has to prove he cares about "those people", Biden is making out with biker chicks and POTUS tweeting out a picture of himself sitting with a pirate for National Talk Like a Pirate Day.  Yes, a freaking pirate.  As you have said before, he seems to be having fun with this.  It is that great offense running trick plays while running up the score.  This was the pitch to the running back, throw back to the quarterback for a touchdown.

And finally, I would have him stand in the rose garden and do interviews.  I would give reporters an interview and tour of Air Force One on camera.  I would invite a famous writer to follow him around for six months and write a huge profile in a non-political magazine.  I would invite the American public into the Situation Room and the Cabinet Room.  I would tattoo the presidential seal on his freaking forehead to remind people that Barack Obama already is what Mitt Romney could only ever hope to be - the Commander in MFing Chief.  (if it wasn't offensive, I would quote Robert Guillaume form Lean on Me right now) I would remind everyone that my guy is Barack Obama, THE President of the United States of America and Mitt, Get Off My Plane!

There is serious power in incumbency.  I would use it.  Press the advantage.  I would even have him begin to talk down to Mitt a little - just a little, but I would.  Give quotes where POTUS "explains" things to Mitt.  I would have Joe Biden doing the speech equivalent of patting Paul Ryan on the head and bringing him a glass of milk and a cookie.  I would officially hire Bill Clinton as the Secretary of Explaining Stuff and feature him in another commercial about why the Obama Administration just needs more time.

And then I would get to work on behalf of Murphy, Warren, Nelson, McCaskill and the like.  I would do everything in my power to create coattails.  I would use the debates and the bully pulpit to ask America to not only reelect the president, but empower him to implement the change our country needs by electing a Democratic majority in the House and keeping it in the Senate. I would have POTUS stand on the accomplishments of his first two years in office.

"...with a supportive Congress, we were able to pass legislation that brings us closer to equitable pay for women, We saved the American auto industry, saved AIG (and later sold shares for a profit that goes in YOUR pockets), and ensured that millions more Americans had access to basic medical care. Trust us again, and I will deliver ..."

I would run up the score.  I would high step into the end zone.

If Team Romney has many more bad weeks like the one they just had, I will be carrying his taxidermied head around in celebration.

  

How do you like them apples?

Best,

Matt

# # # # 

Welcome to Into the Echo Chamber, the weekly electronic conversation of the 2012 presidential campaign as viewed from two Twitter feeds.  Matt Spence is monitoring the Twitterverse of the Romney Campaign, Republicans, and the "red" side of the aisle at @SpencerianRed.  I am monitoring the tweets of the Obama Team, Democrats using @SpencerianBlue.  Our email-based back-and-forths are posted here on Thursdays.  

You are, as always, invited to join the discussion, either in the comments below or by emailing Spencerian Red or Spencerian Blue.

Into the Echo Chamber: Groundwork

Monday, September 10, 2012

Matt -- 

I realized you asked me a question last week, and I did not answer it:

Maybe it is too much to ask of a convention speech or even a campaign, but I want to hear that there is a plan.  Not just some lofty projections.  An actual plan.  Concrete actions that can take place which will alleviate my concerns.  Don't tell me we are going to hire a million math and science teachers.  Tell me HOW we are going to get people with aptitude for those subjects to choose public schools over Dow Chemical and $40,000 over $90,000. 

You may say to me that many of these very topics were addressed last night.  Sure they were.  But I don't believe that much will be done. Do you? 

Good question.

And a fair one.  And my honest answer is, no, I don't.  But then again, my expection for "that much" is lower than yours.

I don't want to talk down to you, but here I go, anyway.  Matt, I've been in government a long time, both at the federal and local levels.  Here's what I've learned: it is designed to be slow.

It's not slow to confound honest, smart, savvy, and results-oriented people like you.  It is slow because it is supposed to be slow.  Because the system is not designed for streamlined, quick change.  It is designed for extended deliberation, for lengthy debate, for false starts, failed tests and do-overs.

Obama was recently asked about some of his regrets over the last three-plus years.  At the top of the list was the way he communicated (or, rather, his lack of communication) to the American public about just how dire the economic situation really was, just how much was at stake.  He didn't say it, but I'm not so sure that he wouldn't also include maybe a bit of the overselling of "change".

After all, what is change?  Well, first and most important, it is an individual thing.  We each define our own change, which is a good thing.  My change is different than your change.  We're different guys, though, different backgrounds, different families.  It's okay to hope for something different than one another.  

And that's why it worked so well in the '08 campaign.  Change was whatever we wanted it to be, and Candidate Obama could stick with the soaring oratory.  It worked.

It won't work again, because the business of government is concrete.  The differences between us must be spelled out.  Change is no longer just an idea in the ether -- it is real policy affecting real lives in real ways.  

Is change predator drone strikes in countries we are not at war with?  Not for me it's not.  

What about not a single Wall Street prosecution after the banks crashed the economy?  Change, for me, would actually have been the opposite.

What about a health plan modeled on one passed and signed into law by a moderate Republican governor... What's his name, again?  Is it change we can believe in?  

The point is, I have problems -- real, substantive problems based in actual policy and law -- with President Obama.  I really do, as do a lot of progressives smarter and more articulate than I am.

But at the end of the day, we are in the final stretch of an American campaign, which means you have a choice between two candidates: a brought-down-to-earth Obama, or a Romney/Ryan ticket which is slowly being consumed by the white-heat burn of its own lies and equivocations.  

I think it's cool that you worked for Bob Graham in Iowa for the '04 Campaign.  It's a once-in-a-lifetime gig, campaigning, especially at the presidential level.  

I'm an old field guy from way back in the day.  What I see the Obama team doing, quite reflective in the @SpencerianBlue feed...

‏@OFA_FL
There's less than a month until the voter registration deadline. What are you waiting for? Visit www.GottaVote.com

‏@OFA_NC
Volunteers of all ages were out in their communities as part of the Ready to Go Weekend of Action.

‏@OFA_NV

Wanna do something fun, fast and free to help reelect@BarackObama?

 

@OFA_NH
Let your friends know that you have @BarackObama's back this fall by committing to vote on Facebook: http://OFA.BO/9m918v  #CommitToVote

...is the hard work of, well, GOTV as best I can tell.  It's GOTV a month or so early, really, I suspect because there are so many terrible efforts out there to undermine the likely Democratic vote in so many critical swing states (like Florida).

For field guys like me, a lot of this is fun.  How many folks turn out at rallies?  How many field offices does each campaign have?  

Yes, the Electoral College tinkering.  Yes, the polling.

That's what I heard from President Obama at the convention, by the way: that there is much, much more work to be done.  I agree.  Are we going to do the hard work of getting him re-elected in order to have the conversation about what must be done?  At least that?  

I certainly think it's worth doing.

All of that to say, I know you're a policy guy.  You want to know the plan and the projected outcomes.  

I care about policy too, but I focus a lot more on the mechanics of the campaign (admittedly, not everyone's favorite topic).  We're less than 60 days out.

Mitt is flip-flopping on health care.  Health care, Matt.  The "repeal it" crowd was the jet fuel in the Republican 2012 Campaign Rocket at the outset.  How's that going to go over with the base, do you suppose?  I don't see a fired up and ready to go GOP machine for November.

There is also some buzz about Obama opening up a bit of a lead in Ohio, which would make Florida -- now still virtually tied -- an absolute must-win for Mitt.  After all, if Mitt loses Pennsylvania (where the GOP machine and high-dollar superPAC funders have already retreated), Ohio and Florida, the path to victory is all but impossible.

I don't have a question for you this time around, Matt.  Just a sort of pseudo-theory that the Obama folks are going to spend the next fifty-plus days doing everything they can to get organized, and turn out the vote.

Back to you.

BJK

# # # #

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Ben -

Sometimes slow is a convenient excuse for lazy or incompetent. Is it "slow" that the United States Senate has not passed a budget since 2009? Is it slow that Congress is about to take a 7 week recess after being back from their 5 week recess for only 8 working days? Is it slow that no less than 5 different groupings of legislators, executive branch staff, retired politicians and the like have met about the $53,000-a-second our country is borrowing - without producing substantive - hell, even minimally substantive - changes? When you have to hang a fiscal guillotine above your own head to even begin to address your unsustainable Trillion dollar a year deficit... that isn't slow, that is incompetent. And gets you a collective 11% approval rating.

On the other hand, I do get your point that government, especially at the federal level should not be knee-jerk and reactionary. It should be deliberative, and if necessary, deliberate. It should be, in the historical sense, conservative.

I always knew there was a conservative soul under that liberal veneer... Right?

I agree that what Obama was able and perfectly positioned to do in 2008 was sell a different tone, a different tenor. George Bailey goes to Washington. An era of post-partisan progress. It has all given way to what keen political and mechanical observers saw all along, a grassroots, community organizing, practical politician with a compelling personal narrative.

As the National Journal says today, "if Obama wins it will be despite the economy and because of his campaign. If Romney wins it will be because of the economy and despite his campaign." The ground game discussion is just now bubbling to the surface on @SpencerianRed. Apparently, the Romney apparatus has eclipsed 2008 McCain figures for voter contacts, door knocks and the like. Ok, great. So what?

There seems to be this unstated belief that all the polling we are seeing is garbage, and that polls of likely voters and polls closer to the election will tell a different story, will reflect the fundamentals of a nation dissatisfied with its direction and uncertain as to why the current administration deserves a re-up. I think that they might even be confident of Romney's performances in the upcoming debates and continued terrible jobs news. I think they see the empty suit vs. the empty chair as a battle they can win. Either the campaign isn't making basic strategy public, or there isn't one beyond "ride the negative tide".

As for the mechanics of it all, I believe the late, great Tim Russert summed it up best when he said (and wrote), "Florida, Florida, Florida!" The inescapable truth of our importance explains Obama in Seminole, Ann Romney in Largo, Biden and Ryan all around, etc. We are the center of the political world for the next 60 days. It should be fun. I was in Tallahassee when it was the center of it all in 2000, in a totally different way. Let's hope, for many, many reasons, this one is different.

Best,

MBS

# # # #

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Hi, Matt -- 

Okay, first of all, it's pragmatism behind the liberal veneer.  Not conservatism.  Come on.

I will certainly concede the point with respect to slow-moving, deliberate government versus a totally locked-up train wreck, dysfunctional, pathetic, lethargic, incapable of doing even the cursory work of making the federal government trains run on time.  It is simply not that hard.  It is embarrassing and potentially calamitous when our government can't even pass its own budget.

It is dangerous and even deadly when our leaders refuse to listen and understand critical information provided through the channels of government, a somber truth we were reminded of this week.

Like you -- and around 65 or 70 percent of the rest of us -- I think Congress is about as frustrating and darn near useless a deliberative, law-making body as you're likely to find.

Too bad we have a representative government.

And for the record, no, I don't think Barack Obama can fix what is broken in either branch (or any of the three, though he obviously can appoint new Supreme Court Justices, should any of the current serving wingnuts do us the courtesy of retiring).  My real hope -- and what I was trying to get to with the slow progress stuff in the last dispatch -- was that we can make small steps towards real governmental reform.  You have to admit: there's only one way to get there, and it's not via a Romney Administration.  

So, back to the presidential race.  

I like to think I'm fairly cautious when it comes to this stuff, so when I see headlines like this -- albeit in the Sideboob Gazette -- I actually get nervous:  Mitt Romney Critics Hammer Campaign For Failure To Fight

Quotes like this from Laura Ingraham don't help, actually: 

"This is a gimme election, or at least it should be," said conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham on Monday. "If you can't beat Barack Obama with this record, then shut down the party. Shut it down. Start new, with new people."

Really, Laura Ingraham?  I thought she had retreated back to the depths of Mordor.  Huh.  Funny that I find myself agreeing with her.  

It's just that these are the kinds of barbs you read after the election ("This was a gimme election!  Or at least it should have been!"), or maybe the week before.  But fifty-something days?  It's unprecedented. 

Anyway, for as quickly as this year has flown by for us (how about for you guys?  I'm pinning it on the new babies...) there still is a pretty fair amount of time between now and Election Day.  A lot could still happen. 

I also think don't disagree with Bob Woodward, who was interviewed on Marketplace today, when he said it is shocking that no one in either campaign is talking about this "fiscal cliff" fast approaching.  In my brief defense, I wrote about the fiscal cliff -- and the idea that it ought to be the only thing either campaign talks about.  Ever -- back in June of this year.

Talk about dangerous dysfunctionality.

Any bets on whether we'll see the fiscal cliff equivalent of the 3:00 AM phone call ad this time around?  

What do you say?

BJK

# # # #

Thursday September 13, 2012

Ben -

The 3 AM ad is a great question. Could it come from the Romney team, inept to this point? I doubt it, but if it did - it would be about the fiscal cliff as you mentioned. There is even a frame for it - Romney's history with the Olympics. (theoretically, saving companies from the brink is what he did at Bain too, but the methods become the story there.) I could probably even write the script:

The ad begins with some Wall Street fat cat cigar smoking, then the music would go dark and the lights would dim as pictures of abandoned suburban building projects were flashing behind a slideshow of foreclosure signs, short sale signs and shuttered small businesses. Next comes unemployment numbers and downtrodden workers standing in line to sign up for unemployment benefits overdubbed with halting, hesitating, equivocating-sounding, out-of-context Obama quotes, followed by college students taking down fading Obama posters and talking about heavy student debt and no job opportunities. When the music finally reaches a nadir, in comes Mitt. "Olympics ... in danger of failing ... America's proud history (Lake Placid, Los Angeles, Atlanta...) ... man of character and seriousness ... strong business turnaround credentials ... Mitt Romney - just what our Country needs." The music builds - probably "America, The Beautiful" - and the ad ends with a chest/head profile shot of Mitt Romney with an American flag waving in the breeze behind him. "I'm Mitt Romney and my pollsters told me to approve this message." -- 30 --

Honestly, it is the only semi-authentic pitch for the guy. As you pointed out, conservatives have rebelled against him from the beginning and are abandoning ship with alacrity. Moderates have no idea what he stands for - and his campaign doesn't seem to, either. The 3 AM fiscal phone call is his argument. Maybe that is what they are saving the $170 Million for - a huge, saturating ad buy designed to scare the s#^% out of people. He certainly has a GOP base ready for that message. Seriously, Glenn Beck is currently promoting a service that can save up YEARS of non-perishable food for your family. You know, for the global financial meltdown all rational (read: irrational) people just know is coming - that or the attacking zombie hordes - I don't know, I couldn't make it through the whole thing.

What would Obama's 3 AM call ad look like? I'd like to hear your version. I am sure that @SpencerianBlue has provided you with plenty of material.

Maybe it is playing out right now. US embassies are under siege in several countries right now. Ostensibly, it is because of some 14 minute, poorly done YouTube video mocking and denigrating The Prophet. More likely, it is because there are insanely high numbers of unemployed among young males in these countries and they are led by groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and others who promote sharia law, reject American freedoms and values, and scapegoat "The West" at every turn. The black flag with the core tenet of Islam that has replaced American flags in at least two embassies does not provide good optics. As we have repeatedly discussed, foreign affairs is an area where Romney is out of his depth. Obama should dominate it, and has to this point.

On the other hand, a protracted bubbling unrest in the Middle East probably does not help. @SpencerianRed has jumped all over this unrest and questioned Obama's leadership, his diplomacy, his - well, pretty much everything. Obama channeling Jimmy Carter quotes about Reagan (the "shoot first, aim later" line) is probably not the way Chicago wanted to go. The typical Red response can be summed up with this tweet:

‏@kirstenpowers10

We now have had two U.S. embassies w/Islamist flag flying over them but really the biggest problem is Romney's press statements. Really.

There has been strong defense of Romney this morning against the "mainstream media" condemnation - asking why that same standard didn't apply to Obama in '08 for criticizing Bush/McCain foreign policy on the same day of American military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't really see the parallel, but it is certainly the meme of the moment. They are also contrasting Adminstration condemnation of the video to OFA accepting money from Hollywood producers who make movies like Religious that relentlessly mock Christians. And there it is... Obama, the Muslim Sympathizer, hates Christians (which would make him self-loathing... but hey, why let a little fact like that get in the way of a good narrative!) and according to Dinesh D'Souza, is an anti-colonialist who wants to shrink American influence in the world. The Manchurian Candidate brought to life.

And we still have 50+ days to go. Ugh.

Back to you,

MBS

# # # #

Welcome to Into the Echo Chamber, the weekly electronic conversation of the 2012 presidential campaign as viewed from two Twitter feeds.  Matt Spence is monitoring the Twitterverse of the Romney Campaign, Republicans, and the "red" side of the aisle at @SpencerianRed.  I am monitoring the tweets of the Obama Team, Democrats, and the "blue" side using @SpencerianBlue.  Our email-based back-and-forths are posted here on Thursdays.  

You are, as always, invited to join the discussion, either in the comments below or by emailing Spencerian Red or Spencerian Blue.

Into the Echo Chamber: Strength and Honor

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Matt -- 

I've had the strangest feeling all day, and I just could not place it.  Not for the life of me.  Finally, at the end of the day, somewhere on the drive home, it hit me: I am nervous as hell.

You and I have some things in common, obviously.  One of the things I know you pride yourself on is your even-keel sensibility.  You rarely get rattled or nervous -- at least not often in the time I've known you.  

I didn't used to get nervous.  

Then I had kids.  

I don't so much get nervous for myself anymore.  I get nervous for them.  What does the future hold?  What will our country be like when they're ready for school?  For college?  For a career, for marriage, for kids of their own?  

For when they have to take care of their aging parents?

What will life be like in that America?  

One thing we know for sure is it will be different than it is today, and most of that will have little to do with politics and government.  But it will have some.  Politics -- the campaigns we run -- and the government we choose for ourselves matters.  It matters because in the larger scheme of things, it is really one of the few things we can control.

And the laws and the policies we choose for ourselves, as you know, aren't ever really for ourselves.  They are for our children.  All our children. 

Yes, I think about the future for my children and I freak out a little bit.  Okay, fine: a lot.

But I think about a future for my children in a world where Barack Obama has served two terms, and I freak out just a little less.

You say he's got to re-sell himself.

I say he's got to sell us the world.  Which is really just another way of saying he's got to sell us on ourselves.  

Deep breath...

BJK

# # # # 

Friday, September 7, 2012

Ben -

 

It is interesting that you were nervous yesterday.  I get it.  I think that this whole election cycle has left me with a sense of unease.  If I'm being totally honest, it probably goes back quite a few years for me - perhaps all the way back to Iowa in the Fall of 2003.  There's lots of empty road - and corn fields - between Maquoketa and Muscatine, which gave me quite a bit of time to reflect on the process in which I was participating, and the people who I was trying to persuade.  Long stories for another time.  The best summary is probably the old joke; the problem with democracy is that everybody's vote counts the same... 

 

As you have pointed out so very often in this space - there are some terrifying beliefs and attitudes among the politically active in our nation.  From peanut throwing to Nazi references, it has not been a stellar fortnight for sanity in politics.  And it will only get worse over the next sixty days.  From granny killers to cronyism, from socialists to criminals, our nominees have had quite a few outlandish accusations thrown at them.  Public service should not look like this.  It shouldn't.  A presidential candidate should not have to undergo a public colonoscopy and challenges to everything from their birthright to their lack of soul (not the Barry White kind, either) to serve the people of this great nation.  But that is where we find ourselves. 

 

All of this is what made hope and change so appealing in 2008.  Why a community organizer with a background that included both Harvard and Indonesia was so exciting.  He could be different.  Hell, maybe even our politics could be different.  He might even be, gasp, post-partisan.  Um, nope.  Our system would not tolerate it.  The politics of the times and the culture of Washington D.C did not permit it.  Have you heard even a single mention of the phrase "post-partisan" since 2009?  I sure don't recall any. 

 

I have to be honest and say I was disappointed in the President's speech last night. I wanted to have that - call it naive if you want - hope again.  Instead, to quote @BuzzfeedBen, I got "Oba-meh".  A compilation of hundreds of other speeches we have heard over the past few years, a well delivered speech that was somehow very small.  And I'm not alone.  Here are some of the words I have seen from reporters and pundits across the ideological spectrum in reference to POTUS's effort last night:

modest. humble. normalcy. carefully modulated. workmanlike. distant. cursory. reserved. familiar. dull. pedestrian.

And those were the nice ones.  More often, I saw things like "exceptionally weak", "a decent wrap-up", "running out the clock", etc.  Many compared it - unfavorably - to a State of the Union (as I suggested yesterday.)  The most common theme was that it was safe.  A safe speech from a guy whose internal polling told him not to rock the boat, not to go big, not to be bold.  To do that would invite the possibility of upsetting the slow, dull march to probable electoral success. 

 

That is not what I am looking for from my Commander-in-Chief, from the Leader of the Free World, from Barack Obama.

 

Now, so as to be totally honest about my hypocrisy, I said just yesterday that Americans were not looking for soaring rhetoric.  I guess that is what I thought - and still do to some extent.  But it isn't what I feel. 

 

I want to know that I shouldn't have to worry about the $50,000 share that each of my boys have of the National Debt.  Trade deficit.  Foreign oil.  Fossil fuels.  Persistent and pervasive poverty and dependence.  School (un)readiness.  Global academic competitiveness.  There are plenty of things that can make me worry.  I don't want to.  I want to trust my nation's leadership to worry about those things so that I can worry about my family.  So that I can worry about how I'm going to feed and clothe and educate my boys, raising them to be men of character and honor and service. 

 

But I do not trust the people who run our country to worry about those other things for me.  And that is the crux of the problem.  It goes back to our generational conversation.  I do not trust the boomer generation to take care of anyone other than themselves.  I wish it were not true, but it is.

 

Maybe it is too much to ask of a convention speech or even a campaign, but I want to hear that there is a plan.  Not just some lofty projections.  An actual plan.  Concrete actions that can take place which will alleviate my concerns.  Don't tell me we are going to hire a million math and science teachers.  Tell me HOW we are going to get people with aptitude for those subjects to choose public schools over Dow Chemical and $40,000 over $90,000. 

 

You may say to me that many of these very topics were addressed last night.  Sure they were.  But I don't believe that much will be done. Do you?  That is why this ad is so devastating, and why the idea of giving yourself an "incomplete" doesn't cut it. 

 

Not that I think Mitt Romney has any answers.  His speech last week proved that he does not. 

 

And that is why I feel uneasy. 

 

...

 

Wow - that has to be the most depressing thing I have ever written.  You were right when you said that I am normally an even-keel guy.  I am.  I pride myself on it.  To top it off, I am also a laid back guy.  A flip flops, blue moon and an adirondack chair guy.  This unease doesn't sit well.  It isn't comfortable.  I like to be hopeful.  I like to be upbeat and happy.  I'll get back there soon.  The farther away we get from these conventions, the better. 

 

Have an awesome weekend with your family.  I'm going to a one year old's birthday party this weekend.  That is a place filled with hope and happiness - exactly the salve I need (well, that and balmex.)

 

Peace,

MBS

# # # #

Friday, September 7, 2012

If you wanna be a star on stage and scream 
Look out it's rough and mean 
It's a long way to the top 
If you wanna rock 'n' roll

-- AC/DC "It's a Long Way to the Top"

Matt -- 

Publisher's privilege: I won't close out our Into the Echo Chamber Convention Specials on such a sour note, Kenny Chesney video links excepted.  It was just too much fun.

Matt, I'm not actually going to disagree with you that much.  It was not a barnburner speech we got from Obama.  It was not in his top ten.  Maybe not even in the top twenty.  

I was going to give you a version of what I've already said in the Finally Friday post earlier this evening -- that this was the the speech of a community organizer.  That it was as much a practical call to action as a policy or political speech.  Like I said, he didn't really frame it in terms of him versus Romney/Ryan.  And like you said earlier, this was more like a State of the Union... without the detailed policy we need and expect in such a speech.

But you deserve better than that.  Our readers (the few dozen who have honored us by following along) deserve better.

I said the other day that there were only a couple of guys who could change the narrative: Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.  

Clinton put the R&R ticket back on the ropes with blow after sweet rhetorical blow.  Democrats will be mining that gold for days, maybe weeks to come.  

Obama did, too, but he did it in a different way.

Matt, I've been thinking a lot about the election of 2008, and what it really represented, at least for me.  I really didn't like George W. Bush.  For so, so many reasons, most of which have been chronicled on this blog.  

One of my biggest grievances against him was that he seemed to genuinely hate government and public service.  I realized they really bloomed during the John McCain/Sarah Palin campaign, but the tea party has its strongest roots in the Bush II Administration. [This is a paradox in so many ways, because Bush -- who many tea party weirdos actually disdain -- blew up the size of government during his tenure.]

I don't know if we ever really talked about it, but the big reason I didn't support Hillary Clinton -- my old boss -- for President wasn't because I was disloyal.  It broke my heart, and I struggled with it.  It was because she was too divisive, too political a figure.  What's more, I knew the scope and range of problems facing our country would take not just a gifted politician -- which she surely is -- but a well-seasoned, savvy bureaucrat.  

It would take a person who understood the workings of government, or at least understood how to learn about those workings, how to manipulate the levers of power to even begin to fix things.

I went with the Constitutional Law professor.  

Constitutional Law professor and community organizer, I should say.

I voted for Obama because I didn't need a guy with a full basket landing on a aircraft carrier with a bullshit "Mission Accomplished" sign behind him.  I needed the guy who knew how the aircaft carrier worked, how much it cost, and whether or not we actually needed the goddam thing.  

I need -- we need, we still need, I think -- not the CEO President, but the Organizer-in-Chief.  

All of that to say two things, Matt.  One, the guy is trying to fundamentally change the nature of not just politics but how we govern ourselves.  I really believe that.  And his speech last night was -- yes, poll-tested -- a reflection of that.  And a call to action.  A call to service.

It takes a lot of work -- and a long time -- to get the job done.

Hey, as Bon Scott sang, it's a long way to the top.  Look out.  It's rough and mean.  

Two, it's Friday night.  I know I gave you shit about Kenny Chesney (who I like well enough, for the record).  

Let's congratulate ourselves on a job well done -- I think we both know we're both egotistical enough to do just that -- sit back with our families, and toast our good health, good fortune, and good wishes for a good campaign in the next sixty days.  

Crank up the good stuff, Matt.  Loud.

Have a great weekend.  And thanks for this great idea.

BJK

# # # #

Welcome to a special Democratic Convention Edition of Into the Echo Chamber, the weekly electronic conversation of the 2012 presidential campaign as viewed from two Twitter feeds.  Matt Spence is monitoring the Twitterverse of the Romney Campaign, Republicans, and the "red" side of the aisle at @SpencerianRed.  I am monitoring the tweets of the Obama Team, Democrats and the blue team using @SpencerianBlue.  Our email-based back-and-forths are normally posted here on Thursdays.

For the week of the Democratic Convention, we will be attempting to post one exchange per day. Stay tuned.

You are, as always, invited to join the discussion, either in the comments below or by emailing Spencerian Red or Spencerian Blue.

Into the Echo Chamber: Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Ben -

I know, I know, I am going out of turn. I thought that I could throw in a couple of quick reactions to President Clinton's speech before you gush uncontrollably about the former boss. I figure I owe you that for throwing off the publishing schedule by not emailing you early enough yesterday.

I don't really know how you kick back and celebrate success, but I am guessing there were at least a few moments of satisfied revelry late last night in the Kirby house. Quiet, of course, so as not to wake the kiddos. Unless you had Finn and Emmy up to watch the master at work. "See kids, this is how it's done."

First, let me say that there are professionals out there writing about this stuff that remind me why I am not paid to do this. Here's a perfect example from John Cassidy of The New Yorker. Two quotes from his blog that say what I wish I had said about the Clinton-Obama dynamic and why it made last night's speech so powerful:

"In a sense, Clinton’s reluctance to embrace Obama personally, and his own fraught history with the President, which I explored in a piece for The New Yorker this week, makes him the ideal spokesman to appeal to those skeptical former Obama voters that his campaign is trying to win back."

And:

"A subtext of the address was that, just like Bill Clinton, wavering voters need not love Obama to understand that he’s a better choice than Romney."

In a way, this is the perfect counter-point to the subtext argument I claimed was one of the takeaways from the RNC.

"I understand you were excited in '08. It is ok you strayed. We forgive you. You didn't know any better. Look around and realize you didn't get what you were hoping for. Come on back".

You got caught up and lost your damn mind versus I just need some more time, baby.

Another fascinating argument Clinton made last night is about which party should be trusted to create jobs. He argued that the "jobs score" over the last fifty years is a blowout Democrat win. Of the 66 million private sector jobs created in that time, Clinton claimed that 42 million came in Democratic administrations. And Politifact agrees.

The fact check produced a fascinating chart, showing that George W. Bush was an absolute train wreck of a presidency. Big shock, I know. But it also gives us this score:

Bill Clinton: Increase of 20.8 million jobs
Barack Obama: Increase of 332,000 jobs

No wonder he is the messenger.

Yesterday, I said that the Dems want to turn this into Clinton's 90's vs. Bush's 00's. But it sounds like, at least when it comes to job creation, they can be even more broad than that. Hand up vs. trickle down.

I know we talked months ago about how Team Chicago wanted to use the month-by-month job creation chart to make their "It's getting better" argument. The economic slowing of the past few months has made that chart less enticing. Maybe this Politifact chart is the replacement. With it as the centerpiece, they can make the argument that, though the first four years haven't been as promised, Dems are still more trustworthy stewards of the economy and job creation than the GOP.

I bet we will see this again.

Lastly, I saw this tweet from Joe Scarborough that I thought made the same point you and I have been talking about for months now:

Morning Joe ‏@Morning_Joe

@JoeNBC: No comparison between Tampa & Charlotte. GOP has been lapped in stagecraft, in speech writing, in speech performances, in every way

No doubt, and last night was the perfect example of it.

I can't wait to hear what @SpencerianBlue had to say about last night's speech. The only retorts from @SpencerianRed were weak fact-checks, arguments for credit due the GOP congress of the 90's and sardonic tweets like this:

Moira Rogers (Bree)‏@moirarogersbree

According to twitter, Clinton just revived Dumbledore, saved the Titanic, destroyed the Death Star and punched out Chuck Norris.

Retweeted by Erick Erickson

If that's all they've got, the next two months are going to be rough for Team Romney.

Eagerly awaiting your thoughts,

Matt

# # # #

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Matt --

I'll admit to you that what I thought might happen is exactly what happened: I watched the Clinton speech and got really emotional, mostly for selfish reasons.  Mostly because it was a pretty good trip down memory lane.  Mostly because I still feel a swell of pride when Bill Clinton gives a speech -- especially a speech like that -- and I know in some small, mostly insignificant way, I was a brief part of the history he made.  

But also because I think it was a pivotal moment, not just for the Convention, but maybe even for the country.  A lot of folks are saying Obama will have a tough time following Clinton.  Maybe, and maybe not just with respect to who delivers a better speech.  Only a couple of guys can change the narrative.  Last night, I think President Clinton did just that.

The Boss was at peak performance. He didn't just bring the A-game, he re-wrote the rules for the A-game. On the fly. I know I intimated that in this speech he might be more forward-looking, less about attacking Romney. I'm embarrassed.  I should have known better.  Only Bill Clinton could pull off both... and make it look so easy.

One of my favorite moments came when a conservative I follow (out of the Spencerian Blue feed) spent more than a dozen or more tweets trying without much success to hack apart the Clinton speech. It was all snark, backed up by... more snark. Even in the sharper "barbs" -- "Heh. Slick Willy throwing some game at Michelle. Nice." -- had an aura of weakness and fear.

Nearly twenty tweets attempting -- and failing -- to find some reasonable fault with Clinton's speech, and the twentieth tweet was this: "Dear @barackobama, good luck following this guy. Good freaking luck."  

A similar sentiment has been displayed by more articulate -- and more powerful -- Republicans. From GOP strategist Alex Castellanos after Clinton's speech on CNN:

“This convention is done. This will be the moment that probably re-elected Barack Obama.”

Now, I could go on and on about the virtues of the Clinton speech, but you and most folks either saw it or can get the details of it somewhere else.  A couple of practical points.

You said this earlier, pre-speech:

My guess is that Clinton will say things tonight that will soon creep into Obama's stump speeches, will show up in his debate responses, will be go-to lines for Cutter and LaBolt. 

He didn't just "say things" -- you could co-opt his speech, line by line, and use it as the daily tip-sheet I get every day from the campaign, or tweet it from here to Election Day, and it would probably work.  Clinton went off-script -- and after the guy being on the national stage for more than twenty years, you'd think people wouldn't be so goddamed surprised when that happens -- but it was worth every minute, every line.

You and I once had a conversation about the nature of Bill Clinton and his speaking style, and even his Presidency, with respect to generational differences.  Now, you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but you (or was it someone else?) said that Clinton is a old-style media President in a new media world.  He doesn't speak in Twitter-sized sound bites, doesn't make for easy Facebook wall posts.  

In re-evaluating that idea, I come to disagree with the notion, and would say last night's speech will serve, at the very least, as a long-lasting gold-mine of campaign-trail rhetorical ammunition for Team Obama.

A final, more practical campaign point, speaking of the campaign trail.  Bill Clinton may be the finest Presidential speaker in a generation, maybe more.  Obama may challenge that tonight -- he'd better.  Point is, for as good a speaker as Clinton is, he's equally as good (maybe better) a retail campaigner.  And on the ground, this is a close election.  

Clinton, properly deployed, could make the difference not just in critical swing states like here in Florida (a virtual dead heat right now) and up in Ohio (another dead heat), he could seal the deal in other states like Iowa (leaning Obama, but basically yet another dead heat), or even the home of the Convention, North Carolina (where Romney is leading, but barely).

He could be not just a critical factor in re-electing President Obama (on the off-chance Mr. Castellanos was wrong and it wasn't sealed up last night), he could help swing several of the competitive U.S. House and Senate races to Democrats.  Despite Todd Akin's offensive comments, the Senate race in Missouri is close.  (By the way, Romney is ahead by twelve there, but I would point out that Bill Clinton won those 11 Electoral Votes in 1992 and again in 1996; Obama lost Missouri in 2008.)  Another state that's actually closer than you think on the Presidential front is Tennessee (Romney only up by 3.5).  That's another 11 Electoral Votes, again won by Clinton in '92 and '96, lost by Obama in '08 (and lost by Tennessee's Al Gore in 2000, by the way).

President Clinton not only proved his relevancy, last night he established himself as a contender and a major force in this election.  Funny, that seems to come as a surprise to a lot of people.  

Not to me.  Some of us have known it all along.

I still believe, Matt.

BJK 

# # # #

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Ben -

I am glad you were able to take a moment last night to remember the good times. We don't always take advantage of those opportunities and we should. There are plenty of people out there with good memories of the Clinton years, and though less personally connected to the Man himself, they may still be quite powerful. If Chicago can find a way to capitalize on that in November and not just this week, it is good news for another 4 years of Barack and Co.

So, to stay on message, I am going to pivot "forward" to tonight. There is no doubt that Clinton raised the rhetorical bar for POTUS. The question is whether or not he will even try to reach it. I think that Obama's speech tonight will be very different - more like a State of the Union Address than a political convention speech. Clinton's systematic dismantling of the GOP arguments gives him that freedom. The big curiosity for me surrounds tonight's takeaway. Last night was all about four more years of blue. What will tonight's be and how closely will it be connected to Obama himself? After all, when the curtain closes, you are voting for a person and not a party. Is the personal loyalty still there? Tonight's events will go a long way to answering that question.

The biggest key for tonight, then, is to rebuild and restore personal faith in Barack Obama. Tonight has got to be about him. A gaffe or a spotlight theft would not be good. On that front, it is a good thing that they have taken the Clint Eastwood danger and split it - Uncle Joe will cover the rambling old white man portion of it while (reportedly) Natalie Portman, Scarlett Johnansson and Eva Longoria cover the Hollywood side. Apparently, John Legend and Foo Fighters are on tap as well. This made a whole lot more sense in the context of Bank of America Field, oops, I mean Panthers Stadium. Inside, it almost gives it a rally crossed with an awards show feel. The night could end up feeling really odd and out of place when compared with the time-tested and smooth feel of last night. Either way it will be interesting.

As for what the President must accomplish, I think that he finds himself in a bit of a box. Looking forward is great, but the GOP has been successfully dinging him for months about promises and platitudes that have not manifested in results. I do not think that more promises or platitudes will change that. I think that America has heard enough Barack Obama soaring speeches and is not looking for another one. In fact, one of the most effective GOP ads I have seen recently is just a compilation of Obama '08 quotes matched to their repeated quotes - many times the wording is exact - from the current cycle. It is devastating in its indictment of campaign promises.

Given that reality, I am not sure what America is looking for from its 44th President tonight.

I will be listening for his pitch to keep and re-engage those who were caught up in the historic, optimistic and heady days of '08. I will be listening for his pitch to the younger generation - who supported him 2 to 1 the last time around. I will be listening for debt and deficit ideas. I will be listening for the two or three hashtagable lines that will carry a chosen message for the next two months.

I think it was actually my old boss and not yours who I was referring to when I talked about old media. Bob Graham's brilliance was meant for a time of Common Sense, not #2012. Clinton has always had the ability to turn a phrase - as he reminded us all so well last night. I think our current President falls somewhere in between. The twitterization of the campaign cycle has helped him but has also derailed him at times. As numerous studies have shown, Democrats are much more likely to be active on social media - they pretty much dominate the space. I think that this has served to mask Obama's snippet weakness. But the full glare is in effect tonight and hashtags will emerge either way.

#renewmycontract

or

#fadedposter

What will it be tonight?

Back to you,

MBS

# # # #

Welcome to a special Democratic Convention Edition of Into the Echo Chamber, the weekly electronic conversation of the 2012 presidential campaign as viewed from two Twitter feeds.  Matt Spence is monitoring the Twitterverse of the Romney Campaign, Republicans, and the "red" side of the aisle at @SpencerianRed.  I am monitoring the tweets of the Obama Team, Democrats and the blue team using @SpencerianBlue.  Our email-based back-and-forths are normally posted here on Thursdays.

For the week of the Democratic Convention, we will be attempting to post one exchange per day. Stay tuned.

You are, as always, invited to join the discussion, either in the comments below or by emailing Spencerian Red or Spencerian Blue.

Into the Echo Chamber: How I Got Over

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

Matt --

I'll get to last night soon enough -- if the Spencerian Blue feed and Facebook are to be believed, Deval Patrick smashed grand slam after grand slam, Governor Ted Strickland is America's newest rock star, Mayor Cory Booker gave the speech equivalent of rescuing a little old lady from a house fire, and the First Lady set the bar pretty damn high for her husband.  We can talk about all of that -- and the anecdotal reports that the Democratic Convention is more open, more relaxed, and basically a better time than the Republican Convention.  

It is at this point, though, that I want to pivot our conversation a bit.  Now, you and I have been talking about the Republicans for a good long time.  I've been talking about them on this blog for even longer.  After all, it was just a few months ago we were in the midst of a protracted Republican primary, the outcome of which seemed uncertain at best.  Remember the heady days of Cain-mentum?  Michele Bachmann?  Rick Perry?  

To this point, it has been largely the Big-Top Republican Freak Show.  With respect to the Executive Branch, the Democrats have the advantage of incumbency.  This is obviously not an insignificant advantage.  However, the challenger's advantage is that they get several months -- maybe closer to a year or so -- to try to paint a picture of the incumbent.

The problem is, the picture from the Republican side is emerging as at least two different styles.  It's Picasso cubism meets Norman Rockwell realism (and just a touch of Jackson Pollock abstract expressionism thrown in, just because).

As Mitt Romney and the Republican Party sloshes paint all over itself trying to paint Barack Obama as... something evil, I will concede that it has made for fun, if not great, blogging.  

There are simply too many competing narratives interrupting the Republican hive mind on who Obama is or what to say about it.  Check out this tweet (admittedly, outside the Blue feed), from a few days ago during the GOP Convention:

Had a great time tonight w/friends at the McCain After Party. Can't wait to evict @BarackObama out of our White House. 

-- Ryan Higgins @RyanHigginsUS

Our White House.  Suggest this tweet has racist overtones -- or is even overtly racist -- and I'm sure Mr. Higgins would say that he only meant "the people's White House".  Or even that the White House should be controlled by conservatives or Republicans.

But the problem is that in the current Republican groupthink, it can be both not racist and entirely racist.  It can serve dual purposes, seemingly at odds with itself, and yet somehow conservative people have rationalized all of this.

I had occassion to be in a position where a "moderate" Republican was telling me about his more conservative friend who "made him" watch the new Dinesh D’Souza propaganda hit-piece "2016: Obama's America," the thesis of which is apparently that President Obama is anti-colonialist ("he sent the bust of Churchill back to England!").

At the risk of giving away where I was at the time, I was not in a position to respond in any way.  Indeed, I was physically unable to do so.

After hearing just a bit too much about Obama "hanging out with socialists and communists in Chicago" and "if you're the radical type, get a gun!" my lecturer said, Well, of course, the real question is, is any of it relevant?

Of course it's not relevant.  None of the attacks are relevant.  And my lecturer -- not a dumb guy -- knew that.  That's the point.  These attacks are embraceable in their irrelevancy.  Other people are saying all this wild stuff... is it true?  Well, who knows!  Better vote for Romney, anyway.  

It's an accidental strategy, and it has provided a surprisingly strong platform for the Republicans this time around.   

But is it enough to go up against the team which led off last night?  

It's a good question.  The better question is this: will the message coming out of Charlotte be hopeful, and will it be enough to overcome the crazy?  

This is what I'm trying to get over: talking about the heaping helping of Republican crazy we've dined on for the last several months.  We've gotten a clear -- well, unclear, style-less -- picture of what they're going to do.

Now it is time to focus on the message of the incumbent.  He's got a record to showcase, and given where we are, if we're honest with ourselves, it will be a challenge to convince people not to switch horses in mid-stream.  

Part of that challenge, I think, is showcasing not just Obama's record, but to showcase the idea that Democrats at-large are not a bunch of wild-eyed lying fire-breathers.  That we do governance well.  

Last night, I think you have to agree that this mission was accomplished, or at least was in the process of being accomplished.  

The Spencerian Blue feed was as busy as I've ever seen it during the First Lady's speech.  In fact, she did a pretty good job of burning up the tweeter machine, at 28,003 tweets per minute at the end of her speech.  There's a reason for that, Matt, and I'm not quite sure anyone at Spencerian Blue has figure it out yet -- it's certainly not something I've seen anyone in the mainstream media articulate in quite the right way.  The reason, I think, lies in something which was actually in Mrs. Obama's biographical video, some remarks she delivered earlier:

"If any family in this country struggles, then we cannot be fully content with our own family's good fortune.  Because that is not what we do in this country.  That is not who we are.  That is not who we are."

Her speech was so popular because she is the first to frame the Democratic message of 2012.

If you're looking for a concise message against a libertarian-based, Atlas Shrugged-inspired, anti-government, schizophrenic Republican Party lead by an ultra-wealthy elitist (whose attack ads are funded by a billionaire casino mogul), then you could do worse than that.

If you are looking for a positive, proactive message to speak to a people who are still suffering in an economy too slow to recover, still struggling in the shadow of wars gone too long, still afraid for the future of their children and families, then that's about as good as you can get.  

Problem is, there's another Obama coming up soon who has little choice but to do better.

Over to you.

BJK

PS:  I saw your inspiration for this time around from The Roots and I'll take a pass.  My inspiration today is from Aretha Franklin, from her awesome two CD-set -- which it may surprise you to learn I own -- "Amazing Grace".  She more or less holds her own against the legendary Mahalia Jackson, but that's a debate for another time and another blog.

Because I know you'll complain if you don't get your way, here's a not nearly as good a song by the same name from some band called "The Roots".

# # # #

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Ben -

A muted reaction @SpencerianRed to the actual convention goings-on told me two things about the first night of the DNC. It went really well for the Democrats, and it doesn't really matter all that much. Even birther buffoon Donald Trump tweeted nice things about Michelle Obama's speech. From retweets alone I can tell there is significantly more enthusiasm in Charlotte than was on display in Tampa and that is a good sign for team Obama.  The red meat quotient was high, but there are distractions afoot.

In the first two days of conventioneering, we have three Nazi references aimed at Republicans. We have a voice vote floor fight over God and Jerusalem, we have a security nightmare with POTUS choosing at the last minute to upstage - oops, I mean attend - the big Bill Clinton speech. He couldn't be there the night before for his wife, but whether it is surrogate maintenance or some other reason, he is in Charlotte today.

Maybe he is just like you and me... Excited to hear what Bill has to say.

In a way, he is counting on his predecessor to put into sharp relief the picture that Team Chicago is attempting to paint. They have essentially tried to set up 2012 as a choice between Clinton's 90's and Bush's 00's with Obama playing the part of Clinton and Romney as the Bush fill-in.  Only problem is that '96 didn't have the same baggage.  You can speak to it much better than I - after all, I was still in high school and a month short of being able to vote in that election - and you worked for the guy. I do know there wasn't 8% unemployment and trillion dollar budget deficits. Those two facts, repeated ad nauseum on @SpencerianRed, tell me that Chicago better have a stronger argument than "give me an incomplete on term 1 and hope for the Clinton years in term 2"...

The message Team Obama will seek to carry forward will probably be one of "in it together" vs. "go it on your own". The flip side of the GOP message of "I built this" - and really, what POTUS was trying to say when he made the now infamous comment. I am really curious to see if it plays it that way in Clinton's speech tonight. Curious to see how much Clinton self/spouses promotion and how much Obama surrogate shows up.  Curious to see how partisan versus how statesman. Curious to see how Slick Willie tells the story of the past four years - particularly the signature achievement that eluded him - healthcare.

People think of Obama as a great Orator, and in many ways he is. Inspiring, thoughtful, etc. He is not, however, on the same plane as William Jefferson Clinton. Not even close. My guess is that Clinton will say things tonight that will soon creep into Obama's stump speeches, will show up in his debate responses, will be go-to lines for Cutter and LaBolt. Before there was Obama in '04, there was Bill Clinton connecting with America in a visceral way that neither Obama nor Romney can even approach. It should be fun tonight.

But I am not going to hear that from my side of the Echo Chamber. I'd much rather be following your feed tonight.

Enjoy the old boss,

MBS

# # # #

Welcome to a special Democratic Convention Edition of Into the Echo Chamber, the weekly electronic conversation of the 2012 presidential campaign as viewed from two Twitter feeds.  Matt Spence is monitoring the Twitterverse of the Romney Campaign, Republicans, and the "red" side of the aisle at @SpencerianRed.  I am monitoring the tweets of the Obama Team, Democrats and the blue team using @SpencerianBlue.  Our email-based back-and-forths are normally posted here on Thursdays.

For the week of the Democratic Convention, we will be attempting to post one exchange per day. Stay tuned.

You are, as always, invited to join the discussion, either in the comments below or by emailing Spencerian Red or Spencerian Blue.

Into the Echo Chamber: The Rundown

Monday, September 2, 2012

Matt --

I am a day early, technically, so I'll keep this short and sweet.

I'm not sure we ever got around to a definitive grade with respect to the Republican Convention here in Florida. I gave them something like a C-minus, which frankly I feel is very generous. Their keynote -- Governor Chris Christie was a lukewarm message-stepper at best. There was the unforgivable racism incident involving a CNN camerawoman, not to mention the GOP functionary from Puerto Rico.  There was the weird dual Gingrich speech which tried to upstage what was perhaps the most confusing of speechs: that of Paul Ryan's, chock full of lies.  

All of that was upstaged, of course, by the -- as you so eloquently put it -- an off-script, rambling octogenarian.  

Who was it we're nominating again?  Oh, yeah... that Romney guy.

Anyway what my question was going to be was, Do you think the Republicans set the bar too low for the Democrats, but even I know that's not the real question.  There is a different bar for the Democrats in Charlotte. 

The Republicans just had to prove they weren't crazy.  They didn't do so hot.

Democrats have to prove that while they may have a winning message, they can actually deliver on it.  Of course no one want to go back to the tax-cuts-for-the-rich days which helped lead us to the brink of global financial disaster.

What's the alternative?  

I'll start with a quick one here, and throw it your way for the last word.

Best,

BJK 

# # # #

Tuesday, September 3, 2012

Ben -

After a long weekend to think it over, I have come to a few conclusions about the RNC. I will get to a grade in a minute, but first, I want to talk a little about what they needed to accomplish. In reality, I think there were only three goals for the convention - red meat for the base, introduce Paul Ryan and make you feel that Mitt Romney is a capable, sane, serious, level-headed guy you can trust. Talk about a low bar. I'll take them one at a time.

Red meat - should be a no brainer, easy as can be. Wasn't. Christie didn't live up to expectations, Rubio was stuck with a job to do instead of being able to build his brand, everything else was pushed down the schedule to times where nobody outside of the barricaded convention hall was paying attention. I give Red Meat a C-.

Paul Ryan - you may not have liked it, political fact checkers may not have liked it, but @SpencerianRed ate it up. Ate. It. Up. They love the young guy, the fiscal discipline talk, the attacks on Obama, the combative stance. The guy's secret service code name is 'Bowhunter' for God's sake. In fact, he bumps up the red meat score to a B- . A full letter grade increase. HOWEVER... As an introduction to a nation, it left quite a bit to be desired. Two narratives emerged from is speech - faded Obama poster and lies. One is a great line, the other challenges one of the few early strengths associated with him - the idea that he is a straight shooter. More than canceling each other out, I would call it a loss. C-

Mitt can lead us - eh, I guess. But what was with Clint? Seriously, a chair? Old guy rambling knocks humanizing off prime time, plus wife was two days and eight storylines ago.... If you can't even command the spotlight on one single night of your own convention, you really are an empty suit. The question remains, however, if an empty suit is enough when paired with weak fundamentals for the incumbent. Romney didn't step in it, but he didn't step up either. Flat C. Which fits.

So, overall, I give the convention a C. Not good if you need a big momentum shift. But the most interesting, and somewhat subtle message I heard during the RNC was this "I understand you were excited in '08. It is ok you strayed. We forgive you. You didn't know any better. Look around and realize you didn't get what you were hoping for. Come on back". It is a message about Obama, about unmet expectations and unrealistic hope. In other words, the generalized, age-neutral 'faded Obama poster' message. Depressing, but potentially effective. Would love to have your thoughts on it.

DNC, aka Referendum Convention, is already upon us.  Due to the compressed time, there wasn't going to be too much dwelling on the RNC anyway. The question for team R&R is if they can be part of shaping this week's narrative. And they are trying. So here is what you will see from @SpencerianRed all week:

#Areyoubetteroff? #Areyoubetteroff? #Areyoubetteroff? #Areyoubetteroff #Areyoubetteroff? #Areyoubetteroff? #Areyoubetteroff? #Areyoubetteroff #Areyoubetteroff? #Areyoubetteroff? #Areyoubetteroff?

Your serve, Mr. President.

It should be fun!

Best,

MBS

# # # #

Welcome to a special Democratic Convention Edition of Into the Echo Chamber, the weekly electronic conversation of the 2012 presidential campaign as viewed from two Twitter feeds.  Matt Spence is monitoring the Twitterverse of the Romney Campaign, Republicans, and the "red" side of the aisle at @SpencerianRed.  I am monitoring the tweets of the Obama Team, Democrats and the blue team using @SpencerianBlue.  Our email-based back-and-forths are normally posted here on Thursdays.

For the week of the Democratic Convention, we will be attempting to post one exchange per day. Stay tuned.

You are, as always, invited to join the discussion, either in the comments below or by emailing Spencerian Red or Spencerian Blue.

Into the Echo Chamber: Deuces

Friday, August 31, 2012

Ben -

Well, our region survived. Aside from the jokes about humidity and cockroaches and strip clubs, I think you have to say that Tampa hit a home-run this week. Much credit goes to Mayor Buckhorn and the Tampa Police. In working with protestors and standing firm but acting fair, protesters were able to have their say without becoming criminals. There was no University of California pepper spray moment. In fact, a typical Tampa Bay Bucs game has five times the arrests that were made this week. That's right, there were only 2 RNC-related arrests. One for a guy carrying a machete and one for a persistently uncooperative protester.  That's it. 

So what have we learned? Well, first of all we have learned that mystery guests are a bad idea. We have learned that there are Republicans who can speak Spanish. We have learned that Mitt Romney cannot seem to command a spotlight. We have learned that the GOP message machine is still tripping all over itself. In a way, it is quite fascinating. I have written on it before and I believe it even more strongly now. The Nike-esque ability to coin a phrase, craft an image and mount a public relations campaign has disappeared from the GOP.

Not that I am the one to fix that problem, but if I were asked, I would say that the pieces are all there. The fundamentals of this election cycle have always been in the GOP's favor. The potential narrative to reject the incumbent is plain to see and seems easy enough to relate. Apparently it is harder than it looks.

Just as in so many other moments Romney should have been able to capitalize upon, last night's acceptance left quite a bit to be desired. And just like the big picture, the fundamentals were there. A touching personal story told by "regular folks", a slick video, a powerful introduction and a well-written speech with just the right balance of content. It was all in place. Then came Rambling Harry. It was as if someone had escaped from one of the many nearby assisted living facilities and wandered onto the biggest stage imaginable. Oops, Uncle Clint forgot to take his meds again! Look, he's talking to a chair!

What? You say that was the over-hyped "mystery guest"? Someone actually planned it Someone made the decision to push the candidate's personal narrative support pieces off prime time to allow a rambling octogenarian to speak to 20 million viewers without a script or vetted remarks? Well, I would say that you can be ready to see an uptick in the unemployment numbers again. Cause if I were in charge, heads would roll. What a slow-motion train wreck.

How appropriate. Yes, a rich old man yelling at a pretend Barack Obama is a great metaphor for the RNC. Yes, a slow-motion train wreck of a convention capper is appropriate and right in line with the slow-motion train wreck of a GOP nomination process. Remember Cain-mentum? Or Michelle Bachmann's brief turn in the spotlight? Or the fact that people seriously considered the pu-pu platter of candidates Gingrich, Pawlenty, Santorum, Paul, et. al.?

The fundamentals were always on Romney's side there as well. He'd been campaigning for 6 years. He had the most money. It was "his turn". It will be interesting to see if the general election fundamentals - high unemployment, low consumer confidence, high gas prices, etc. - will be enough to carry him again. Lost in the Gran Torino meltdown, Romney made the argument - quite well, in fact - in his speech yesterday. It is the "are you better off" question that every incumbent must face. And this is how Romeny famed it:

"In the richest country in the history of the world, this Obama economy has crushed the middle class. Family income has fallen by $4,000, but health insurance premiums are higher, food prices are higher, utility bills are higher, and gasoline prices have doubled. Today more Americans wake up in poverty than ever before. Nearly one out of six Americans is living in poverty."

That is a grim picture. If this election is truly going to be a referendum, that isn't the message Team Obama wants people to base their judgment on. "It could have been worse" is not a sales pitch either. But we'll get to that next week. Somehow I doubt that the DNC will be headlined by a senior citizen and a barstool. After all, the ones with message discipline are now the Democrats.

How the heck did that happen?

Back to Blue,

MBS

# # # #

Friday, August 31, 2012

Matt -- 

Happy Friday, and happy end to the Republican National Convention.

I agree: the big winners out of this Convention were Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn -- a Democrat -- the Tampa City Council, Hillsborough County Commissioners, the Tampa Chief of Police, and everyone else involved in the planning of this event.  They helped make Tampa -- and the entire Tampa Bay area -- look great on the national stage, especially in the face of the threat of Tropical Storm Isaac.

When did Democrats become the message leaders?  I don't know.  Hell, I've pretty much been keeping up with this blog over the last six or so years because Democrats have been so terrible at the messaging piece.  

And now here we are.

This is "Into the Echo Chamber," and so I echo much of what you say.  Whoever thought the Clint Eastwood thing was a good idea ought to be out of a job today.  I said a couple of posts ago that I likened this event and even Romney's campaign to someone falling.  Falling, stumbling, bumbling from one thing to the next, and so to be fair to Eastwood -- and even those scripting the RNC -- the whole thing it was really just another stumble along the campaign trail.  

The hard-to-watch Eastwood moment.  The racist peanut throwing event.  The shouting down of a Republican functionary from Puerto Rico who had taken the stage.  Paul Ryan's strange speech filled with easily-disproved lies.

I even heard the Gingriches tried to do a speech together, trading paragraphs.  Only a rambling Clint Eastwood could eclipse that horror show.

Governor Christie's message-stepping speech in which he seemed to forget who was being nominated, not mentioning him -- Mitt... Romney, is it? -- for many minutes.  

Sure, the Convention had its high water marks.  You and I wondered early on if there would be a "Barack Obama 2006" breakout moment, and I think the consensus has shown that in this was accomplished, in some measure, by Senator Marco Rubio.  Maybe not such a surprise to regular Rubio watchers, actually, but worth noting, to be sure.  Rubio cemented himself as a player for 2016, no question.  

Matt, I had occassion tonight to have a discussion about politics in the frame of the Republicans being in town with folks of differing politcal views.  I didn't speak up as much as I should have, and the one time I really wished I had involved the conversation about guns in America.

There were the predictable shrill liberals who had to misquote the Second Amendment out loud and wonder where all the militias are.  There was a conservative gentleman there, and he was trying to keep it in the framework of the national conversation.  

The question was asked of him: What's really your concern?  Obama has done nothing on the gun issue in his time in office.  Which is a true statement.  There has been little -- actually, there has been no legislation on this issue since Obama took office.  Indeed, he's hardly used even the bully pulpit to address this issue, despite the clear need for governmental action and leadership in this country (I won't link back to the recent tragedies we've witnessed; you know them as well as I do).  

"Obama hasn't said anything about guns," said a liberal man next to me.

The conservative guy chuckled. "Well, that's what scares me."

No.

No.

You can't have it both ways.  You cannot have it both ways.  The conservative movement and the NRA have effectively won the argument about guns, gun availability, accessibility and appropriate usage in this country.  For all intents and purposes, the argument about guns has been conceded by President Obama, for he has not, as we established, even raised his voice on this issue.  

If he had proposed a raft of legislation, then the staunch gun-rights advocates like my new friend from this evening could profess fear.  But you can't be afraid of one and the other. 

It is simply not fair.  It is disingenuous, at best.  It is a deliberate reframing, mid-conversation, of the rules of what you're debating (gun rights) and what you are actually afraid of (a black man with power). 

And it does not work that way.

At least until it does.  At least in the mind of the current Republican voter.  

"We built this!" The theme of the Republican Convention, built on a false conceit, a phrase wholly taken out of context and twisted to fit a convenient frame.  

A national debt counter?  It was the Republican President who wasn't there who fired up two wars -- one predicated on lies -- and cut taxes for the wealthy which lead to that debt.  Only in the mind of a Republican voter could you be in the same convention hall with a national debt counter right by the school-marm scold brother of that President, as he whines that the current President should stop picking on his brother, and have it all make some sort of sense.  

And then there's the empty chair.  I'm sure somehow that makes sense in their world, too.

It's over, now, and the energy for Charlotte is already palpable.  I am quite sure there'll be gaffes there as well.  (Let's face it: Joe Biden will be there.  Kidding, Uncle Joe, kidding.)  

I'm looking forward to it, too.  

Happy Labor Day weekend to the whole family, Matt.  

BJK

# # # #

Welcome to a special Republican Convention Edition of Into the Echo Chamber, the weekly electronic conversation of the 2012 presidential campaign as viewed from two Twitter feeds.  Matt Spence is monitoring the Twitterverse of the Romney Campaign, Republicans, and the "red" side of the aisle at @SpencerianRed.  I am monitoring the tweets of the Obama Team, Democrats and the blue team using @SpencerianBlue.  Our email-based back-and-forths are normally posted here on Thursdays.

For the week of the Republican Convention, we will be attempting to post one exchange per day. Stay tuned.

You are, as always, invited to join the discussion, either in the comments below or by emailing Spencerian Red or Spencerian Blue.

Into the Echo Chamber: Faded Obama Poster

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Ben -

Well, rarely do things involving politics go exactly as you would expect. The 10 PM hour of the Republican National Convention did just that last night. It started with Ann Romney giving a universally applauded speech. She spoke of love, basement apartments, family struggle, real marriage and of triumph. She sought to humanize Mitt, to paint him not just as an empty, expensive suit, but rather as a father, a husband, a man who has risen to incredible success based on hard work, commitment and a good heart. She did quite an effective job of asking the American people to count on Mitt as she and her family have for 47 years. And honestly, it is hard to argue that Mitt has come through for his family. They certainly have lived the American dream to the fullest. Without coming out and saying it, she did the "chicken in every pot" message for Mitt. Other than snark, I have yet to hear a negative word about the speech, the optics, the moment, or anything else. @SpencerianRed, of course, called it a home-run.

And then we have Chris Christie. Divisive, self-congratulatory, pompous and condescending - he was almost a comical stand-in for the other side of the GOP story. You know, the one that Ann just peeled Mitt away from. In fact, in a moment that probably angered writers from the Onion, Christie's central theme argued directly against Ann's. If you had to describe Ann's speech in one word, it would have been love. Christie, no joke, said this: "sometimes you have to choose respect over love." Uh, Governor, I am not sure what you were doing back there in the green room, but I think you just stepped on something - and it was wearing a red dress.

Christie's argument for Romney - when he finally got to it 16 minutes into the speech - basically was about making the hard choices that bring progress. He talked of politicians seeking respect and results instead of status and adulation. He firmly separated an "us" from a "them". Un-ironically, he actually said "We win when we make it about what needs to be done. We lose when we play along with their game of scare and divide." In a total reverse of the thesis of the first fifteen minutes, apparently he considers himself a loser.

The take-your-medicine speech was quite interesting in the abstract. In some ways, it came from a decade of presidents and leaders telling us not to sacrifice, but to shop. It came from the last GOP president's failure to call for collective sacrifice in a time of war and economic downturn. It came from a spiraling debt built by a monstrous budget deficit built from a lack of political courage on both sides of the aisle. But courage is not about saying something harsh. Courage cannot look backward. Courage is about stepping forward. And there was some nod to that - talk of "taking our country back" and of "big problems with not-painless solutions" and more. But no real idea of what that would mean. In a way, this speech was almost part 1 of 2.

Which leads us to tonight's headliner, @PaulRyanVP. If you look at the Christie speech as the setup to Ryan, it makes more sense. To quote him from his very slick intro video, he was sent to do a job, not be elected prom king. If you look at the accusations and scare-mongering in the light of how Democrats are attempting to paint Paul Ryan, it makes sense to have Christie be that messenger. He isn't on the ticket. He's already perceived to be an ass. He can say mean things because we expect him to... and it frees Paul Ryan up to offer the solutions. Jersey in your face gives way to midwestern manners - though the message is the same, the messenger makes the difference. Christie said it so Ryan doesn't have to.

The Washington Post writes today that the GOP is winning the race to define Ryan. Tonight will be a key moment in that race. Will Ryan be the futurist or the Granny killer? Will Ryan be the fresh face unafraid of real solutions or the regressive social darwinist?

If anything, Chris Christie's keynote set him up for success. We'll see if he can capitalize on it. My guess would be that our twitter feeds will not give us the answer. @SpencerianRed will be fawning and triumphal. @SpencerianBlue will be combative and dismissive.

In a way, it is brilliant. If they can pull it off. I know the Red side is all sorts of pumped up for tonight. What are you hearing out in the Blue?

Best,

Matt

# # # #

Thursday, August 30, 2012

Ben -

I am glad you didn't get a chance to respond to yesterday's email because the only thing I like less than being wrong is having someone else point it out to me. And my predictions for Paul Ryan's speech were wrong. My point about the @christiekeynote speech serving as part 1 of 2 for @PaulRyanVP, allowing the latter to be positive - was wrong. Dead wrong. In accepting the nomination, Ryan did not holster his weapons and portray a positive message. Though the daggers were launched with a smile and an "aw shucks" manner, they were thrown nonetheless. Paul Ryan played the traditional VP attack dog role with vigor.

On the other hand, I love being right. And I think that the standout quote of the night fit right in with something I have been saying all along - Ryan and the GOP think that there is a generational opportunity to exploit. They think that there is room to peel the support of the under 40 crowd away from Obama. The headline quote that had the pundits punditing was this:

"College graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life."

Boom. Right there is the message - economy, failed hope/hype, student debt, jobs crisis, etc. all rolled into one strong image. If Ryan can stay in this lane, stick to this general point, he will certainly do some damage to the Obama brand - and the Obama base. I'm not sure that polling can get an accurate picture of what the under 40 vote will look like in November but what we do know is that Obama dominated it in '08. Can he again in '12?

I have to say, though, that as a whole, it was a strange speech. I haven't seen this in other places, but I felt that there was a very odd son/father vibe to Ryan's description of his relationship with Mitt. It sure didn't sound like a partnership of equals where the VP was ready to step in if needed. It was more like an heir with a seat in the boardroom that he didn't quite fit into yet. And that surprised me. It wasn't what I expected.

Perhaps asking Ryan to step away from policy details left him without a crutch of comfort. Perhaps his desire to be deferential to the nominee just came off awkwardly. I'm not sure what happened, but I was definitely not overwhelmed nor overly impressed. And that surprised me a little.

In places, the speech even got a little weird. A couple of times Ryan referred to "government planners" or "central planners", as if he was in some post-apocalyptic sci-fi world government story. Just strange.

I do have to say, however, that he did a better job of framing Mitt - his successes, his religion, his record - than almost any I have seen. Here's what he said:

Mitt Romney and I both grew up in the Heartlands, and we know what places like Wisconsin and Michigan look like when times are good. We know what these communities look like when times are good, when people are working, when families are doing more than just getting by, and we know it can be that way again. We have had very different careers, mine mainly in public service, his mostly in the private sector. He helped start businesses and turn around failing ones, and by the way being successful in business, that's a good thing.

Mitt -- Mitt has not only succeeded, but he has succeeded where others could not. He turned around the Olympics at a time when a great institution was collapsing under the weight of bad management, overspending and corruption. Sounds kind of familiar, doesn't it?

He was the Republican governor of a state where almost nine in 10 legislators are Democrats and yet he balanced the budget without raising taxes. Unemployment went down. Household incomes went up, and Massachusetts under Governor Mitt Romney saw its credit rating upgraded.

Mitt and I also go to different churches, but in any church, the best kind of preaching is done by example, and I've been watching that example.

The man who will accept your nomination is prayerful and faithful and honorable. Not only a defender of marriage, he offers an example of marriage at its best. Not only a fine businessman, he is a fine man, worthy of leading this optimistic and good-hearted country.

Pretty good.

@SpencerianRed, of course, ate the speech up. As John Cassidy from the New Yorker put it - the Cheesehead brought the red meat. He faced Obama down and called him out. He even dinged the W. administration a bit. He had some nice one-line attacks that I am sure we will hear again. Here are the three biggies:

They have no answer to this simple reality: We need to stop spending money we don't have.

The man assumed office almost four years ago. Isn't it about time he assumed responsibility?

and

They have run out of ideas. Their moment came and went. Fear and division is all they've got left. With all of their attack ads the president is just throwing away money.

And he is pretty experienced at that.

Red meat for sure. And the convention audience ate it up. The larger question remains whether or not the voters in Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, North Carolina, Virginia and Colorado will. I think the jury is still out on that one.

So, in many ways, last night offered a traditional VP speech. Appeal to the base, attack the opponent and build up the top of the ticket. The question for tonight is whether the top of the ticket can cash in... We shall see. My expectations are pretty low. And to top it off, the convention planners made an almost inexplicable decision. They placed Jeb Bush on the final day of the convention. How many people do you think will make the point that they wish it would have been him speaking at the end instead of Mitt? If Jeb brings the house down, the bar will be almost impossibly high for Mitt. Tonight should be interesting.

So what are you hearing from @SpencerianBlue?

Best,

MBS

# # # #

Thursday, August 30, 2012

Matt -- 

First of all, I owe an apology to you and to our readers. If there was one night I should have been "on" it was last night -- and it just wasn't to be.

That said, I do hope folks enjoy the now-extremely popular guest post from Kevin King on the Romney/Ryan ticket's total lack of foreign policy experience (at a dangerous, changing time in our world), as well as the great interview I managed to get with Josh Shulman, who is running for State House in the new District 69.

With respect to @SpencerianBlue, most folks seem pretty intent on doing whatever it takes to foster what looks to be a growing mainstream media consensus that Paul Ryan's speech was, well, pretty much one big lie.

A quick word about Governor Christie, though, before we get back to Ryan, and certainly tonight's main event.  I've never gotten it.  I mean, I get it... sort of.  He's brash.  If he was southern, they'd call him "plainspoken."  He cusses at members of the media.  He's not a traditionally good-looking politician.  (In fact, he's always reminded me a bit of Vincent Pastore, who played Big Pussy from The Sopranos).  

All of this combines to make him, apparently, charismatic.  Charismatic politicians are nothing new, but the thing about a politician is, charisma or no, they have to deliver something.  And if you held a gun to my head -- speaking of The Sopranos -- I'm not sure I could tell you what Governor Christie has delivered to the people of... New Jersey, is it?  

As I followed along the Spencerian Blue feed, it was interesting to see them sort of using Governor Christie's sub-par speech -- truly, "you have to choose respect over love"?  It really is an episode of The Sopranos with this guy -- as a springboard to attack Ryan.

I'm not sure how the Republicans are going to feel about the Convention as Mitt finally takes the stage and they prepare to wrap up.  

Objectively, you'd have to give it a C, maybe a C-minus.  Hell, maybe a D.  I mean, they lose a whole grade in my book for the two idiots who threw peanuts at an African American camerawoman for CNN and shouted rude, racist phrases at her.  They lose points as well for predicating the theme of the Convention -- "We Built That" -- on a quote taken out of context.  They lose more points for poor strategic placement of signage.  Optics, people:

Matt, I made myself a promise at the start of this Convention: that I would take a moment to stop and reflect on events which led us here.  Think about that for a minute.  Remember the protracted primary?  This is the natural continuation of that long, embarrassing process.  

I can't really say I have a lot of hope that the next two months will be much different. 

As we wind down, how are folks taking the man at the top of the ticket?  Just checking in with Spencerian Blue, now, the fact check teams are going nuts.

Best to Erin and the boys.

Oh, and I'll be better about my responses.

BJK

# # # # 

Welcome to a special Republican Convention Edition of Into the Echo Chamber, the weekly electronic conversation of the 2012 presidential campaign as viewed from two Twitter feeds.  Matt Spence is monitoring the Twitterverse of the Romney Campaign, Republicans, and the "red" side of the aisle at @SpencerianRed.  I am monitoring the tweets of the Obama Team, Democrats and the blue team using @SpencerianBlue.  Our email-based back-and-forths are normally posted here on Thursdays.

For the week of the Republican Convention, we will be attempting to post one exchange per day. Stay tuned.

You are, as always, invited to join the discussion, either in the comments below or by emailing Spencerian Red or Spencerian Blue.

Into the Echo Chamber: Jersey Sure

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Ben -

So I ended up being two days early with my Boogity Boogity Boogity video. But now, it is on. The GOP convention is off to an interesting start today with RGA day - seven Republican governors and Ann Romney on the schedule. Thankfully for all, Governor Voldemort has decided not to attend and bore us all to tears. The big mouth speech tonight will be the "keynote" address of Chris Christie - as sure of himself as any politician ever. He started @christiekeynote to inform everyone of his impending genius... Even going so far as to say that people are expecting a Gettysburg Address-type performance from him. I doubt it. I would surmise that there are two things about that speech that will not apply to Governor Christie's effort tonight: brevity and meaning.

You asked if @SpencerianRed was talking at all about the ground game and mechanics of the election. Other than quoting polling numbers here and there, I would say not really. I do not see much of an effort to look at this as 15 battleground mini-elections, but rather as a national election. It seems that still the focus is on big picture and that if they win the larger narrative and the debates, and if the economy continues to slog, they will win all the little battles. Apparently, they either do not subscribe to Tip O'Neill's adage that All Politics Is Local, or they disagree. I get the feeling that they are counting on anti-Obamacare voters to carry them. We shall see.

In a way, tactically it feels like the '08 primary with Romney playing Hillary and Obama as himself. One confident of their destiny, the other rolling up sleeves and working every block like an old Chicago alderman. Except this time Obama has the power of incumbency and the curse of a 4-year track record. It will be interesting to see if that tips the scales in the other direction. I remember a conversation that you and I had in the first week of February expressing our surprise that Romney was closing up shop in Florida. I think as a result he lost four months or so that may prove to be decisive. I wouldn't know what his camp feels about it via twitter, though.

I have to say, for inside baseball fans like you and me, the @SpencerianRed feed comes up woefully short. Lots of videos, ads, quotes from cable news network appearances, etc. Not all that heavy on the strategy and tactics side of things.

One strategy is clear from following @PaulRyanVP. He is definitely focusing on the generational view I have spoken of before. Both of his tweets today referenced future generations. It is an interesting angle to play because Obama is touting how he has made college more affordable, yet tuition is at an all-time high as is student debt upon graduation. I think that R&R feel like they can win the younger voters - or at least drastically cut away at Obama's advantage there.

Also of note, there is a running debt clock on one of the Tampa Bay Times Forum's scoreboards... Interesting to see which speakers reference it and how often... Other random things of note, I have added Jeb Bush, Jr. and George P. Bush, as well as good ol' T. Boone Pickens and several of the governors speaking tonight. Should be fun to see what they have to say.

In the big picture, I am curious to see how both sides play politics in a time of natural disaster. Not much to speak of yet on my end. What about @SpencerianBlue.

Best,

MBS

# # # #

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Matt -- 

This will be short and sweet for a couple of reasons.  One, father (of young children) to father: between the "accidents" on the rug, the extra baby clothes to fold, and a kid whose energy seems to expand as the evening winds down -- later and later -- well, the time to write a thoughtful response just got away from me.  

It's not Emmy or Finn's fault.  This is family life, right?  This is what it's about, and we -- both of us, I think -- do this when we can.

The other is, like you -- for those reasons we just alluded to -- I am not watching the convention in real-time.  But this is okay.

This is actually in some part what this project is about.  I may actually be able to get something better with respect to a response about the first full non-Isaac impacted day of the RNC tomorrow out of the @SpencerianBlue feed rather than trying to cull it all together now.

You did say one thing that got me thinking -- and it's a point on which I hope we can expand.  The old Tip O'Neill adage: All politics is local.  That, and the image of Obama as a hard-working Chicago alderman, of the old school.  

I think that's exactly right, and that's largely what you've seen out of the Spencerian Blue feed.  It's the concept of victory through organizing.  It's not so much that Obama has the winning message -- he does, but it hasn't been the bread and butter of his campaign -- it's that he's out-organizing the other side.

Just like he did against Hillary Clinton, as you pointed out.  

In fact, that's a fantastic analogy.  Hillary had the message, because that is what the Clinton's are the real masters of: messaging, framing.  But Obama always had the boots on the ground, the house parties, the meet-ups.  He perfected it through the Internet, and if Romney/Ryan lose, Republicans may not catch up for a generation.  

Anyway, this is what's at the real heart of the Blue feed: you cracked the code.  It is all about organizing.  Or most of it is, anyway.  

We have applied to refinance our home under the HARP program.  It essentially means we'll be paying less per month for this house where we're pretty far underwater.  It's a great program, and it is times like these I think about folks who are in similar situations to the one Duncan and I find ourselves in, but are not as politically involved as we are, and I don't wonder if there's not a bit of organizing by good policy going on there as well.  

I have to say, if I was ambivalent about politics, I'd be backing Obama now for sure.  And I wonder: the conversation -- the frame -- has been "Obama inherited a crappy economy, and it's not better yet" for so long, that maybe we're starting to miss the real stories, slow to emerge to be sure, of success, and getting our heads above water again.  After all, if I am doing better -- certainly if I'm doing better by my kids -- then I'm going with the guy who got me a hand up.

Don't want to lose the thread about generations and Paul Ryan.  You're on to something there.

Stay well, and best to Erin and the boys.

BJK

# # # #

Welcome to a special Republican Convention Edition of Into the Echo Chamber, the weekly electronic conversation of the 2012 presidential campaign as viewed from two Twitter feeds.  Matt Spence is monitoring the Twitterverse of the Romney Campaign, Republicans, and the "red" side of the aisle at @SpencerianRed.  I am monitoring the tweets of the Obama Team, Democrats and the blue team using @SpencerianBlue.  Our email-based back-and-forths are normally posted here on Thursdays.

For the week of the Republican Convention, we will be attempting to post one exchange per day. Stay tuned.

You are, as always, invited to join the discussion, either in the comments below or by emailing Spencerian Red or Spencerian Blue.