Category Archives: Economy

(Ah, that catchall “liberal media” – promoted by Colorado Pols)



Election losers inevitably turn their anger toward the news media, and that’s what Rep. Cory Gardner did Tuesday night when he told KNUS.

Gardner: “When the American people were watching the news with their family at the dinner table, they saw a media that is gung-ho for the President,” Gardner told KNUS last night. “So not only were we running an election against the President of the United States, we were running an election against TV stations around the country and inside people’s living rooms.”

Seems like the 1950′s rearing itself up again in the GOP mind here, because when was the last time the family ate dinner and watched the evening news together? My kid tries to reach for his computer, while eating at our dinner table, but I’ve always assumed it’s Facebook he’s glued to, not Brian Williams. And TV anchors are the last things I want to see at dinner.

But more to the point, KNUS host Steve Kelley should have asked Gardner for examples of the pro-Obama media bent.

It’s far more productive to criticize the media with specifics than with generalities.

And here’s a specific example of how media intervention, albeit by print media, led, probably unintentionally, to a blip of pro-Romney ink.

Close readers of The Denver Post, and I mean really dedicated readers, may remember consultant Eric Sondermann’s prediction, which he prefaced with “abundant doubt” in the newspaper the Sunday before the election, that Romney would win the Electoral College Vote, due to Romney’s “closing momentum.”

I was surprised to see this because on KBDI’s Colorado Inside Out on Friday night (at the 10:50 mark), Sondermann said:

Sondermann: “This thing is way too close to call. Anyone who tells you where this thing is going is lying to themselves and to somebody else.”

Sondermann told me today that Denver Post Editorial Page Editor Curtis Hubbard pushed Sondermann to make a prediction, after Sondermann had initially tried not to do so.

“My first submission was to try to hedge it, and Curtis Hubbard, completely appropriately, asked me to call it,” Sondermann said.

Sondermann was the lone “independent” on The Post’s “Battleground” panel, which was assembled to analyze election issues.

“There was nothing wrong with Curtis pushing me to make a call,” Sondermann said.

It wouldn’t have made “interesting reading,” Sondermann told me, for the three people one the left to say one thing (Obama wins), the three on the other to say something else (Romney wins), and for the person in the middle (Sondermann) to make no prediction at all.

I’d argue that Hubbard shouldn’t have pushed Sondermann to come down on one side or the other.

The truth is that calling the election a tossup was completely reasonable. And you’d think Hubbard would have expected Sondermann to choose Romney, if pushed. I find Sondermann right leaning, and his selection of Romney, based on nonexistent “momentum,” is one piece of evidence that I’m right. But that’s just speculation and weakly supported opinion on my part, obviously.

In explaining his Romney prediction, Sondermann said he wrongly saw the election as being “akin” to the Reagan-Carter contest, featuring a “bad economy and a beleaguered incumbent” when, in fact, the right frame was Bush-Kerry.  Like the Bush-Kerry race, this election was “a whole series of hotly contested narrow victories that when all put together equal a substantial triumph,” Sondermann said.

Full story: Gardner blames Romney loss on TV “news,” but he’s not asked for specifics

New post-debate polling in Colorado out this morning from the University of Denver shows President Barack Obama dented, but still very much in contention after his rough night:

Four percent said that they would vote for someone else, and five percent noted that they remain undecided. The poll also found that President Obama is currently leading among independent voters, 48-31.

Despite President Obama’s current lead in Colorado, respondents have improving impressions of Gov. Romney. Those who said that they watched or heard about the debate believe that Gov. Romney won by a huge margin, 68-19. That includes almost half of Obama supporters (47 percent), with just 37 percent of the president’s supporters saying he did the better job…

Sixty-nine percent of debate watchers became more strongly committed to their candidate, while only 7 percent became less strongly committed to their candidate. Five percent of debate watchers reported changing their minds. [Pols emphasis]

“…The poll found a significant amount of polarization in the Colorado electorate in regards to the economy,” noted University of Denver political scientist Dr. Seth Masket. “Democrats are much more likely to see the economy and their overall economic situation to have improved over the past year. Republicans, meanwhile, have strongly negative views of the economy and their own economic situation over the past year. Independents are more likely to say that the economy has gotten worse over the past year.”

Poll details here. Apparent in these results is Mitt Romney’s debate performance hitting the wall of an already mostly-decided electorate. Romney was good, but not enough to shake Obama’s base of support in large numbers. There just aren’t that many undecided voters out there to be swayed at this point, and impressions of the two candidates are more or less indelible.

Due to the overall closeness of this race, we are in a relatively unusual situation where the October presidential debates have at least a hypothetical chance of affecting the pre-debate trajectory in the polls–which was Obama beginning to pull away from Romney decisively. With little else remaining between now and Election Day, this is the spin the Romney campaign wants to impart on everything. And there’s no question Romney’s post-debate bounce is real.

But where Romney needed a knockout, what he may be getting is a high water mark. Obama is still in a position to choose which one it will be in the upcoming debates. External events, like Friday’s good news on jobs, push back in Obama’s favor. Obama’s very lucky, and maybe in some eight-dimensional chess way was always aware, that Wednesday was not his last chance to prove his mettle. No doubt David Plouffe will say so if, by November 6th, he manages to.

Full story: University of Denver Poll in Colorado: Obama 47%, Romney 43%

An interview of freshman Rep. Scott Tipton by liberal blog ThinkProgress last Wednesday at the University of Denver presidential debate has produced more than its share of eyebrow-raising comments. On Thursday, there was Tipton’s hilarious “our specifics will be general in nature” gaffe. And just in time for the weekend, here’s Scott Tipton’s view of Mother Teresa!

Okay, not Mother Teresa personally, but you get the idea:

[THINKPROGRESS]: What did you think about the nuns who are going out and barnstorming across the country, campaigning against the Ryan budget?

TIPTON: I think one of the important things is that we often get people that want to try and divide. [Original emphasis] No one, Republican or Democrat, wants to hurt any individual.

[THINKPROGRESS]: Do you think they’re being divisive?

TIPTON: I think pointing to this without the understanding apparently that we’ve got to be able to pay for those different programs. So how can we best deliver them in the most efficient way? What’s the best way to really address needs and concerns that people have right now? Wouldn’t it be better to actually create an environment where they could get a job and provide for their families? That’s what we’re pushing hard on.

Because the first thing Jesus thought about when it was time to feed the poor is who’s paying!

Now usually, especially when you’re a politician running for re-election in heavily Catholic areas of the state like Pueblo and the San Luis Valley, you preface your remarks about those divisive nuns with something about how you, you know, still like nuns.

But to Tipton, if they’re not toeing the Ryan Plan line, they’re just hippies with funny smocks.

Full story: Politician Pro Tip: Don’t Diss Nuns

As the Washington Post reports:

The U.S. unemployment rate fell to 7.8 percent last month, dropping below 8 percent for the first time in nearly four years. The rate declined because more people found work, a trend that could have an impact on undecided voters in the final month before the presidential election.

The Labor Department said Friday that employers added 114,000 jobs in September. The economy also created 86,000 more jobs in July and August than first estimated. Wages rose in September and more people started looking for work.

The revisions show employers added 146,000 jobs per month from July through September, up from 67,000 in the previous three months. The unemployment rate fell from 8.1 percent in August, matching its level in January 2009 when President Barack Obama took office.

Getting unemployment under 8% ahead of the election is a big psychological milestone, but the underlying numbers in this report–upward revision of job creation numbers for prior months, higher wages, and the fact that there are finally more jobs in America than before the economic collapse of 2008–all bode very well politically for President Barack Obama.

We realize the “confidence fairy” isn’t supposed to come out of hiding until…well, you know, after November 6th, but it seems as though she’s making an appearance a few weeks early.

Still good news, right? If you don’t think so, maybe your priorities are a bit skewed.

Full story: Unemployment Falls Below 8% Nationally

Politico kicks off this morning’s post-debate recap:

As with any performance, a debate score is in the eye of the beholder. At least on stylistic grounds, however, a clear consensus of early reviews – most notably from liberal commentators dismayed by Barack Obama’s lackluster outing – judged Romney as having the superior evening, with a spirited personal demeanor, crisply delivered lines, and a bullet-pointed policy message that kept its focus on jobs while parrying many of the president’s attacks…

Romney was helped by a surprisingly drowsy and dull-edged performance by Obama. The president made no major blunders, and he was consistent in his argument that Romney’s fiscal proposals are unrealistic and irresponsible, forcing a choice between huge deficits or big tax increases on the middle class. But he seemed sedate in demeanor, his words full of pauses and even at times nervous stammers, and he sometimes gave off an air of weariness or impatience toward the proceeding.

Obama can take some comfort in history. George W. Bush was widely judged to have clearly lost the first debate against John Kerry in 2004, a fact that didn’t change the arc of the race. And, as Obama allies noted Wednesday, most voters – unlike many reporters and commentators – do not judge debates principally as theater criticism but more on which policy arguments make sense to them. [Pols emphasis]

The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza on Barack Obama’s lackluster performance:

The incumbent just seemed something short of engaged in tonight’s proceedings.  Like his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, Obama’s debate performance seemed purposely restrained – striving for a workmanlike competence but achieving something well short of that.  Obama’s facial expressions seemed to alternate between grimly looking down at his podium and smirking when Romney said something with which he disagreed.

Our live-blogger’s first impressions notwithstanding, it’s the consensus view among most pundits–and polling conducted immediately after–that GOP challenger Mitt Romney won last night’s debate. Whether or not you think Romney or Obama won last night is a function of partisanship, but also nonpartisan judgments on style and persuasiveness–then and only then, based on the commentary we’re seeing today, are we to judge them based on the facts.

The facts are where this becomes a much less auspicious outing for Romney, but that takes time to sink in with the voting public. The fact-checking that has already begun doesn’t look favorably on Romney’s (latest) views as expressed in last night’s debate, and as we’ve said, if the final impression is of a slick boardroom operator who lies, it’s not going to help Romney in the end.

But without question, Romney looked polished and sounded confident as he resurrected “death panels,” denied the higher taxes his fiscal plans would impose on the middle class, and made claims about “cutting Medicare by $716 billion” that have been debunked over and over again. And this is the key point: the pundits declaring this debate a win for Mitt Romney know all of this. To many pundit class observers, presentation simply matters more than the underlying facts.

As for Obama, most news reports acknowledge that he made “no major mistakes,” and delivered his points with a more digestible cadence–a marked contrast to Romney, who seemed determined to fit as many words into his allotted time as he could. Fact-checkers have noted a few misstatements from Obama, but nothing on the scale of Romney invoking death panels.

But compared to Romney’s fierce energy, Obama looked tired and unprepared. He almost seemed presumptuous that everyone would understand the complexities of being President and fill in the blanks in his halting delivery with the appropriate gravitas, but that didn’t happen.

And while Obama made some good (if often bookish) points, some of the most devastating arguments available against Romney, in particular the recently-exposed video of Romney writing off 47% of Americans as people who “believe they are victims,” were entirely absent from last night’s debate. To the extent that this debate matters in the long arc of the campaign, that decision may well be remembered as a major strategic error.

Bottom line: within Obama’s scholarly hesitation and presumption, as well as Romney’s factless vigor and slick delivery rewarded yet again, hard truths of our politics today are revealed.

Full story: A Triumph of Form Over Substance

That’s the emerging consensus, as the Washington Post reports:

President Obama travels to Henderson, Nev., on Sunday for a mission far more important than the usual swing-state campaign rally: He will huddle privately with senior aides for an intensive, three-day boot camp to prepare for the first presidential debate.

On Monday, Mitt Romney will do the same with his advisers in Denver, two days before the rivals take the stage at the University of Denver for a 90-minute faceoff focused on the economy.

With Obama assuming a small but clear lead in the polls with five weeks remaining in the race, the candidates’ willingness to nearly disappear from public view for 48 to 72 hours reflects the high stakes of the three October debates for both men.

Meanwhile, arguably the better debater on the Republican ticket, Rep. Paul Ryan, is busy…well, maybe not lowering expectations for Mitt Romney’s anticipated performance Wednesday night at the University of Denver, but certainly front-loading expectations in his special way:

“We’re running against an incumbent president,” Ryan told Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace when asked about conservatives saying Romney needs a “clear victory” at Wednesday’s debate. “We’re running against an incumbent president with incredible resources. But more importantly, I don’t think one event is going to make or break this campaign. Look, President Obama is a very – he’s a very gifted speaker. The man’s been on the national stage for many years, he’s an experienced debater, he’s done these kinds of debates before. This is Mitt’s first time on this kind of a stage.”

Wallace quickly reminded him that Romney did 23 debates during the long primary season… [Pols emphasis]

So much for that. But setting aside Ryan’s trademark mendacity, he makes a good point.

The fact is, our recollection of President Barack Obama’s 2008 debate performance against GOP nominee John McCain was that Obama was good, but by no means dominant–we don’t really think debates are Obama’s preferred form of interaction any more than Romney’s. In the GOP primary debates, there was a persistent sense that Romney was aiming, and succeeding, to simply appear more credible than his often-laughable opponents like Herman Cain and Rick Perry. Relative “presidential-ness” is an advantage Romney won’t enjoy against Obama.

But as a candidate tracking downward in most polls, Romney is the one with everything to gain or lose in these debates, especially Wednesday’s in Denver focused on economic policy. Short of a force majeure event in the month of October beyond anyone’s control, Romney is just about out of chances to reverse his present losing trajectory. Romney needs to go big in these debates, but not in a way that Obama will deconstruct right after with fact-checked authority. Given that so many of Romney’s most salient attacks have been ripped apart by independent fact-checkers, Obama’s ability to damningly call out these errors significantly restricts what Romney can say. Romney’s fastest ticket to losing is leaving viewers with the impression that nothing he said was true. Obama’s first priority is to facilitate exactly that.

Romney could of course lay out an alternative vision for the nation instead of attacking, but given the nature of Romney’s recent problems, as in his stated opinion of a little less than half the nation, it will be hard to avoid raising more questions than he answers. We’re not saying this as a backhanded attack; it’s a recognition that Romney has painted himself into a corner. We truthfully don’t know how he’s supposed to walk his current state of affairs back.

If Romney can make a truly fact-based, if inevitably less bombastic case against Obama in this debate, he could certainly help himself in a race that remains relatively close. The question will be, with Obama’s rebuttals immediately available, whether setting aside unsupportable attacks not grounded in fact leaves Mitt Romney with anything to work with.

Full story: Wednesday’s Debate at DU–Romney’s Last Chance