NY Daily News Endorsement of Romney is a Clear Sign that Obama’s Base Has Eroded

   “The presidential imperative of the times is to energize the economy and get  deficits under control to empower the working and middle classes to again enjoy  the fruits of an ascendant America. So The News is compelled to stand with Romney.”

Bookmark and Share   And with that, the traditionally liberal oriented Daily News which endorsed Barack Obama in 2008, endorsed Mitt Romney for President in 2012.

The endorsement is probably meaningless in terms of its effect on the final result in the election, especially the expected result in New York City which The Daily News covers. Few if any committed voters in the New York tri-state area will be changing their minds based upon this endorsement.  First of all, millions of people in this area are homeless, or without power and busy throwing their belongings in to garbage bags and dragging them to the curb as they try to salvage their flooded homes.  So many of them are not seeing or hearing about the endorsement and those that might, probably won’t be convinced to change their minds because of it.   But while the endorsement may not make a difference, it is still an important verdict.    It is further evidence of a national sentiment which is not being accurately measured in most state and national polls.

Polls which are basing their results on the 2008 turnout models are giving President Obama an overwhelming and undue edge by assuming that voters are as excited by and as enthusiastic with Barack Obama as they were in 2008.  That model does not accurately gauge the sentiments of voters who four years later are disappointed by Barack Obama and as seen in the opinion of the liberal editorial board of the Daily News, that disappointment even exists among the President’s base.

Ultimately, an incumbent can not run away from their record.  President Obama has done his very best to run away and hide from it, but like his own shadow, he has not been able to distance himself from it.  And it is that record which The Daily News based its decision on.

The Daily News dedicated more than half of their editorial outlining the failures in President Obama’s record, including his two centerpiece legislative agenda items… the economic stimulus packages and Obamacare.  And when it comes to the promised hope and change that Barack Obama rode to victory in 2008, The Daily News points out that very little changed and hope under Barack Obama has become a distant memory.  This point is made most apparent in their describing the process that Obama used to pass healthcare reform as a partisan mess.

The Daily News put it this way;

“R.I.P. and never to be resurrected — Obama’s promised bipartisanship.”

Meanwhile, the editorial board of the News did not base their decision entirely upon a desire to vote against Barack Obama.  In their editrorial they offered numerous reasons to vote for Mitt Romney.  They write;

“Critically, he has tailored his policies to create jobs, jobs, jobs.

The centerpieces of Romney’s plan call for spending restraint and rewriting  the Internal Revenue code to lower rates by 20%. He would make up much of the  lost revenue by eliminating deductions and loopholes that have made the tax  system a thicket of strangling complexities. On its own, paring the personal and  corporate rules to the basics would catalyze business and consumer spending.”

The endorsement goes on to praise Romney for his energy plan, Medicare proposals, immigration strategy.  In other words, even The Daily News sees Romney as candidate solid enough to vote for and not as a protest vote against Barack Obama.

No, the Daily News endorsement won’t change the minds of many voters and possibly not even any voters at all.  But with two days to go till the election, it doesn’t matter.  As demonstrated by the liberal Daily News, even the President’s base is finding it hard to honestly say that the last four years have been a success and they finding it even harder to say that another four years of the same will be any more succesful.   Most moderates, independents, Libertarians, Republicans and conservative have known that for quite some time now.  But it is becoming more and more obvious that even many Democrats and liberals are accepting that.  Such is not a recipe for victory for Barack Obama.  It is a winning formula for Mitt Romney

The polls are not picking up on those conclusions.  Instead the liberal hacks and leftist manipulators of numbers like Nate Silver over a the New York Times are trying to convince us that Mitt Romney has about an only 20% chance of winning.  If they truly believe that, than they are far less intelligent than I have until now known liberals to be.

More realistic indications of the national sentiment are reflected by those like Michael Barone, one of the most prominent and less partisan political analysts in the nation.  Barone projects a Romney win in the Electoral College with 315 electoral votes.   White House 2012’s own projection is close to Barone’s, with two exceptions.  While Barone projects Romney will take Pennsylvania and lose Nevada, White House 2012 believes Romney will take Nevada but lose Pennsylvania.  We will defer to Barone’s expertise on the issue but a more likely outcome is that the Romney-Ryan ticket will win neither Pennsylvania or Nevada.  But fear not.  Such a result would still produce a Romney victory in the Electoral College with 295 electors. Of course if this is the landslide that both Michael Barone and White House believe we are headed towards, Governor Romney could win both and seal the deal with a 321 to 217 Electoral College win.

Either way, the writing is on the wall.  The momentum remains behind Mitt Romney in these closing days of the campaign and as President Obama continues to wreak of desperation on the campaign trail, a cool and confident Mitt Romney is seeming more and more and presidential on the campaign trail as he continues to win over over undecided voters and energize his base.

So while The Daily News endorsement of Mitt Romney will not change the outcome of the election, it confirms that there exists a negative sentiment of President Obama that has even spilled over to liberal partisans who despite trying quite hard to find any excuse to support their ideological standardbearer, can’t find any.

Bookmark and Share

Advertisements

Republican Morning Memo for Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Bookmark and Share

Why Haley Barbour isn’t running

How Haley Barbour’s moves shakes up the 2012 field

Nate Silver, “Schmuck of the Week”. And it’s only Tuesday

Santroum says health law fueled his possible presidential run

With gas prices on the rise, Pawlenty hangs energy policy around Obama’s neck

Surprise! Ron Paul to begin his third campaign for President today in Iowa

President Obama tries to make his campaign seem like the underdog rather than the incumbent

Jim DeMint. Not running for Prez, but headed to New Hampshire to make sure that a Republican President is elected

The potential First Spouses. A look at the spouses of the potential Republican presidential candidates

Bookmark and Share

The Pomposity of the New York Times’ Nate Silver

Bookmark and Share Wow. I believe pompous arrogance would be the most fitting way to characterize Nate. Silvers recent analysis entitled On The Largely Irrelevant News About Haley Barbour Not Running for President.

First of all, for Mr. Silver to characterize Haley Barbours decision not to run for the Republican presidential nomination as irrelevant, is mind numbingly ignorant. The Barbour decision is one of the most important decisions to have been made regarding the 2012 presidential election to date. As noted in White House 2012, Governor Barbours decision not to run, has freed up many supporters and much money. Furthermore; whether Silver wants to deny it or not, that decisions has increased the chances that one of the top tier Republican presidential contenders, Governor Mitch Daniels, will run. This is far from irrelevant.

But beyond this, Mr. Silver takes it upon himself to bestow great credit to himself for never having given much thought or ink to the possibility of a Haley Barbour presidential candidacy. This is not something which I believe he deserves either personal or public credit for. Perhaps part of the reason as to why Silver did not take the potential candidacy of Governor Haley Barbour seriously was because he is utterly blind to the art of political campaigning and its powerful ability to overcome some negative perceptions, and to accentuate positive ones. Perhaps another reason is because Mr. Silvers liberal biases do not allow his mind to be as open as he would have us believe.

Haley Barbour is conservative, a point that I am sure did not go unnoticed by the New York Times Nate Silver. And it is that point which more than likely accounted for his tendency to not take Barbours potential candidacy seriously.

The fact of the matter is that for Mr. Silver to give himself a Super Bowl ring for Monday morning quarterbacking a game that has not yet even begun, is a bit silly. For him to imply thepossesion ofsome greater political instinct or knowledge than others, including Jonathon Martin of Politic, simply because he had not given much ink to the possibility of a Barbour presidential candidacy, is utterly ridiculous.

Two days prior to Governor Barbours announcement, I made my own assessment here in White House 2012 and in it I questioned the certainty of a Barbour presidential campaign. The accuracy of that post did not give me license to arrogantly discount the opinions of others and claim or imply that I have shrewder political instincts than George Will, Charles Krauthammer or Jonathon Martin.

The truth is that Mr. Silver may not have wanted to advertise the possibilities that existed within a Barbour candidacy, but that didnt make him any more correct than those who refused to deny those possibilities. While Barbour had several obvious handicaps, most of which White House 2012 acknowledged, he also had the capacity to rise above them. His fundraising ability is almost unmatched, his organization reach and ability was endless, and his record, policies and vision were more than powerful enough to build a credible candidacy on. But Mr. Silver claims he never believed so, so he deserves credit.

Credit for what? Denying the potential that existed? I dont think so.

Although I tend to believe that Haley Barbour and his family, decided against a run for President because of the obstacles, I do not believe the decision was reached because they concluded that they could not overcome the obstacles. I believe they decided not to run because they did not know exactly how committed they were to insuring that they overcame those obstacles. It is that uncertainty of commitment that Haley Barbour cited as the reason for deciding not to run. Yet in his analysis, Nate Silver suggests that his colleagues would be best advised to not take what those they write about so literally. I suggest that Mr. Silver listen to what those he writes about have to say and instead of automatically discounting the truth in what they say, perhaps he should first be open to thepossibility of thetruth.

Bookmark and Share
%d bloggers like this: