Looking for a Liberal Leader

The race to become the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada is underway. On April 14th, 2013, party faithful will choose the leader they hope will take Canada's "once natural governing party, but now third party in the House" down the path of renewal - a path they hope can reposition the party for success.

While the field currently boasts a number of candidates, at this time it appears that the lion's share of the attention will be lavished on three: Justin Trudeau and Martha Hall Findlay, who have both launched their campaigns, and Marc Garneau who will do so this week.

Over the coming weeks and months, I will be writing about this campaign - the candidates and the issues. To start things off, I thought I would borrow page from Andrew Coyne and offer some unsolicited advice.

***

As Mr. Coyne pointed out in this excellent piece the party has an important choice to make. It can choose to swing for the fences by seeing themselves as viable candidates for power in the next election, or it can preach patience and look to first generate stability and then build from its position as the third party.

His recommendation - the patience route - is reasonable, as it takes into account the litany of challenges the party is facing. It also suggests that settling in as a third party can afford the Liberals the opportunity to develop more definition to their party - something that has been dwindling since 2006.

The argument is that freed from having to play it safe as one of the two contenders, the party can lay out more robust, thoughtful and perhaps controversial policy positions. This is what Reform and the NDP did. The question is whether the Liberals have the patience necessary to survive a longer spell on the sidelines.

***

Building on Mr. Coyne's arguments, I offer some additional points for the Liberals to consider...

Define Progressive...

A centrist party is by definition a difficult thing to define. Move away from this nomenclature and instead look to define what progressive means in the 21st century.

Progressive needs to be more than a new way of saying "left". The Liberals need to frame progressive as being about balance and collaboration.

A progressive brand should be one which defines what fiscal responsibility means in a modern society. It needs to acknowledge that sound finances and sustainable social programs are equally important to the country's future prosperity.

It should be a brand which breaks both the mindset that taxation is bad, and the mindset that suggests that controlling spending is draconian. Neither position is true, despite what the traditional right or left will tell you.

More than anything, defining progressive is an opportunity to illustrate how economic policy, health policy, environmental policy, education, trade and foreign policy are all inter-connected. Too often they are presented as independent of one another, or even mutually exclusive.

A progressive party should look to connect the dots between the multiple policy threads that make up governing and tell a story which brings the voter into the dialogue. A progressive party should foster engagement, not discourage it.

A tall order, yes. But an opportunity to fill a void which is missing in Ottawa right now.

Pay Heed to the Lessons of Romney, part one...

As Justin Trudeau is currently learning, what you have said in the past can and will be used against you - often and with scant regard for context. And the impact can be significant.  Just ask Mitt.

Quick question: Who won the Republican nomination campaign? Answer: Barack Obama.

That campaign forced Romney to adopt positions which would appeal to the conservatives of the Republican party, but which would not appeal to mainstream American voters.  The result is that while Romney fought to define himself for Republicans, he opened the door for the Obama campaign to define him for the rest of the country.

The definition they offered was something the Romney campaign never really recovered from. Even when he tried he simply reinforced a sense that he would say anything to anyone. When a candidate loses the voter's "does he understand me" test, he or she loses the election. 

The Liberal candidates need to be mindful of this fact as they debate the issues. I am not for a moment suggesting that any candidate adopt a bland, un-offensive approach which tries to please all. But each candidate needs to find their space or ground. 

Moving all over the map, as Romney did, will be damaging. Define your campaign and stick to your principles.

And finally, be mindful as to how you go after one another. Learn not just the lessons of Mitt, but also the lessons of Stephane. As candidates you will look to draw contrasts between one another. But don't adopt the hyperbole that can hamstring whomever the eventual winner will be.

Remember, the Conservatives are just waiting for you to do so. Tread carefully.

Pay Heed to the Lessons of Romney, part two...

Romney won his party's nomination because he was deemed electable. The Liberals need to avoid the "electable trap".

Falling into this trap means choosing someone because you think they can deliver the goods at the next opportunity. For the Liberals, this would be a long-shot. 

As Mr. Coyne points out, the hurdles the party faces are not insignificant. While the unpredictability of politics reminds one that anything can happen, the current facts suggest that on balance the Liberals need more than 2-3 years to be in a position to challenge for government.

With this in mind, the party needs to select a candidate for the long run. The next leader needs two elections and time to build. It has to be someone prepared to put in the time out of the spotlight as they work to re-build.

In the end it is a balance. You need someone ready to lead should fortune swing your way. But you need someone patient to wait and prepared to do the work necessary to build.

And for heaven's sake, Liberals. Don't ditch the leader if they don't win.

***

In less than five months, the Liberals will select a leader. Between now and then, however, the party and its faithful have some thinking to do.

What are the lessons of the past six years? What investments are needed to re-build the party? Are you prepared to make them?

Many thought that electoral defeat was just the normal "time in the penalty box"; that after a spell on the sidelines it would be their turn again. The thinking was that at some point enough voters would simply tire of the Harper government once they knew more about them, and presto(!) the Liberals would be back in government.

They were wrong. And that is why we stand here today at the beginning of this campaign.

The leadership campaign is probably the Liberals last, best shot at repositioning themselves in the eyes of voters. The stakes are hight. Let's see if they are up to the challenge.

I, for one, hope they are.

Obama's win and Romney's Loss

So, there it is. President Obama has been re-elected in what ultimately turned out to be a pretty comprehensive victory.

A look at some of the top-line Obama results is not happy reading for a Romney campaign team that was confident it could win:

• 303 Electoral Votes, with the possibility of 29 more from still-counting Florida;
• a majority of the popular vote;
• a campaign that got to 270 without Ohio, Florida or Virginia;
• winning a strong majority of women's votes (with women accounting for 53% of the entire electorate); and 
• a lock on the African-American, Latino and youth vote. 

Add to this the ongoing demographic shift in America which favours the Democrats and you can glimpse a future that could prove challenging to a Republican party that is already struggling with how to balance the more traditional elements of the party with the Tea Party supporters.

While the future of the GOP is something that will be written about in countless post-mortems, today offers an opportunity to make some observations about the current state of the party and in particular the Romney campaign.

1. Paul Ryan

In 2008, the Republican Vice-Presidential nominee became a large part of the campaign story for almost all the wrong reasons. Four years later, I would posit that questions will also be asked about the choice this time around.

Paul Ryan was not a bad choice in Palin-esque kind of way. But he appears to have been a bad choice in terms of how little he benefited the campaign. Over the course of the campaign he seemed to evolve from a being a choice that would ignite the base to almost being a "Oh yeah, Ryan, forgot about him."

When one looks at Ohio and Virginia and the central part they would play in a Romney campaign strategy, it seems odd that the Republican nominee chose to look elsewhere for a running mate. It also seemed odd that he failed to choose someone who could enable him to close the "he does not get me gap."

2. He doesn't get me

A candidate's ability to connect with their voter is crucial. The candidate who conveys empathy will always be more likely to garner the support of the voter who feels understood. This is a big part of what happened last night.

In this campaign, Mr. Romney basically made half an argument. He successfully made the economy the number one issue for voters, and in so doing was able to convince a majority that he was the man to tackle it. But that was only half the job.

The half he failed to do was convince people that in addressing the economy, he would see their interests as his. Mr. Romney could not demonstrate that he sufficiently understood their interests and that he was prepared to use that insight to guide policy. The choice of an ideologue like Ryan only compounded that problem. As did...

3. "47%"

Way back when in that fundraising dinner video, Mr. Romney infamously commented that there are 47% of Americans who would not vote for him. He described them as being a group that could not be convinced to take personal responsibility for themselves.

First, those remarks simply reinforced the "he doesn't get me" line of thinking. Second, I suspect those remarks helped drive to / keep with the Obama campaign the swaths of the electorate that carried them to victory - women, Latinos, African-Americans and youth.

4. From severely conservative to moderate Mitt and all stops in between

If you asked voters what Romney stands for and the values he represents in the spring, you would have gotten one answer. If you asked him last week, you would have gotten another.

And therein lies the problem.

The Republican primaries forced Romney to the right to such a distance that it would be difficult to come back without leaving the impression that this was a politician prepared to say anything to get to the Presidency. The primaries also left the Obama campaign with a wealth of material with which to frame Romney as out of touch and not aligned with the concerns of middle-class America. 

And frame him they did. Romney spent most of the summer and the early part of the campaign trying to chip away at that image. In the end he was unsuccessful.

***

The points above are by no means meant to suggest that the Obama campaign lucked into victory. From the narrative they set, to the convention they held and the ground game they put in place, it was all in all a superlative campaign - particularly in light of the economy they faced.

They also impressively recovered from the Denver debate and in the process made the race a whole lot more interesting for those of us watching.  Thanks for that, team Obama!

***

So, the campaign is over. The Nate Silver's of the world were proven right and Americans woke up to the same Congress and Executive that they had the day before. And all for the low price of $6 billion.

For the Obama campaign, deserved success. For the Romney campaign, a sense of a opportunity lost given issues and challenges facing America. And for this Guy Watching Politics, a thoroughly enjoyable and intriguing political roller coaster. 

To those who took the time to read, thanks for joining me in following the long and winding road...to the White House.

24 hours to go....give or take several protracted legal battles

"Twenty, twenty, twenty-four hours to go.  I wanna be sedated." - The Ramones

I have always been of the view that you can find a song title or lyric to basically describe whatever is going on, and today is no different. This time tomorrow - 24 hours from now - the transition from voting to counting will be well-underway. For many it promises to be a tense and intense night. 

First let's start with the polling. The majority of published polls now show President Obama with the lead - both nationally and more importantly within the swing states that will decide the Presidency. 

As always, Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight does a great job of pulling them all together. I would also recommend a look at Public Policy Polling's final set of polls here.

The bottom-line for many pollsters is that the consistency of the President's polling in these states and his re-taking of the popular vote lead make him the strong favourite tomorrow. You can see odds anywhere from two-thirds to north of 80% in terms of the likelihood of an Obama victory.

And yet we have a race that pundits continue to claim is too close to call. Why?

First, while the President has leads in several key states many are not decisive and some (when aggregated) fall close to the margin of error. Much will therefore depend on our second point - turnout. 

Turnout basically morphs into three questions:

- How much higher will Romney's 2012 turnout be than McCain's in 2008?
- How much lower will Obama's 2012 turnout be than Obama's in 2008?
- Are Romney's gains / Obama's losses sufficient to turn small Obama poll leads into Romney victories?

President Obama can afford - and undoubtedly will have - some declines from his 2008 turnout. But he can't afford a lot.

That said, his team are confident that their ground game can prove decisive, both in terms of early vote and on election day. For their part the Romney camp is claiming a better organization and much stronger enthusiasm (compared with 2008) can take them over the line. We will see.

Without question media and new cycles are also playing their part in driving this sense of a virtual dead heat. It makes for a compelling story and you cannot argue with the degree to which it has kept people engaged.

Yet there is one other element which could make things closer than polling suggests, and in fact which polling could not really account for in a model - voting irregularity.

Whether we are talking about provisional ballots, voting technology or voter identification, it is difficult to discern what impact, if any, voting irregularities could have on results. The experiences of 2000 and 2004 (as well as issues at the state level) have people worried about fraud and theft.

This is why Ohio is probably more densely populated with lawyers right now than an other part of the United States. And this is why there is a possibility that we will not know who wins tomorrow. Or Wednesday. Or even this week.

This is not the likely outcome, but it is not improbable. And in a country that aspires to be a shining city on the hill and the world's greatest democracy, the fact that this is not improbable is a tragedy.

So, hold on tight America! 24 hours to go....give or take several protracted legal battles.

"Can't talk, on the phone with Obama..."

A little more than a weekend separates Americans from today and election day. While early voting has been underway in some states for some time, Tuesday is the day the majority of Americans who choose to vote will do so.

As the homestretch morphs into the final push, the candidates are moving in and out of those few remaining states where both feel they have a chance. As noted in earlier posts, their blitz rallies are intended to mobilize their respective bases and convince those undecided or soft votes to vote for them.

Earlier today, I had the chance to "participate" in one of these final blitz rallies. No, I was not in Ohio or any other swing state.

I was on the phone, listening to an Obama campaign call with supporters. The call featured a member of the campaign team and another guy whose name escapes me. Oh yeah, President Obama.

***

Now, until today the closest I got to a something like this was last year when I was a listener on a Dalton McGuinty (remember him?) "telephone town hall" during the Ontario provincial campaign. In terms of the U.S., the closest I have come was listening to those infamous Romney 47% fund-raising dinner remarks on the web.

This time I was listening in on the Obama campaign team presenting supporters with their see of the race, followed by observations on the race from the President, and then a final wrap-up by the team.

The purpose of the call was two-fold. First to keep the supporters mobilized and to encourage them to vote (and vote early).  Second, to solicit funds.

While neither should be surprising, the real interest for me was in the messaging. Here are some highlights:

From the campaign team...

• This campaign is looking like the campaigns of 2000 and 2004; they are extremely close and there is a lot at stake.

• A reminder that in 2000 (in Florida) and 2004 (in Ohio), a few hundred thousand votes changed history, both times at the expense of the Democrats.

• While Obama posted a strong electoral college victory in 2008, don't lose sight of the fact that the race was close with the popular vote seeing some 48% of voters vote Republican.

• While the race is close, the campaign feels very good about where they are and the state of the race.

From President Obama...

• You are not simply supporting a candidate, you are supporting a vision about America. You are supporting students who can now afford university, people who now have affordable health care, auto workers who have had their jobs saved. This is what I hear on the campaign trail.

• You are fighting to preserve the progress we have made.  

• We should win, but have to get our team out on the ground and ensure that we are not outspent.

• We can only go as far as our resources take us, and right now the airwaves are being flooded with lies through Super PAC ads; lies which we need to counter.

• Your support has got us this far and now we have to make the final push.

***

In terms of engaging the base, the lines did well to remind supporters about 2000 and 2004 - elections many Democrats feel were stolen from them. The reminder should promote engagement.

Those lines also were a caution against complacency. For all of the criticism from the right about the predictions and probabilities from the Nate Silver's of the world, the last thing the Obama team wants to see is a complacent base who feel it is won. Calls like this are intended to keep people focused and ready for November 6th.

I found as well that the narrative around "what is at stake" was well-struck. The President used his remarks to remind supporters about the impact they have had as Democrats, and as well as about (a) what else they can do if elected, and (b) about what they could lose if they are not.

Polling was also discussed and yes, for those who doubted, Ohio remains the focus. Interestingly, the narrative around the state of the race in Virginia left me feeling like they are not that confident there. Otherwise the commentary on polls and the state of the campaign was the first time I heard the Obama team say they "should win."

As for the fund-raising pitch, it was important that they tie it to the Super PACs and the recent onslaught of ads against the campaign. Consider this part of the call "fear-factor" time.

The subtext was something along the lines of the following: "After telling you what we have accomplished and what is at stake, I remind you of our foes and the resources they have, and I ask you to open your wallet one last time."

I suspect more than a few did.

***

So there you go. What started as a regular Friday turned into an unexpected and interesting experience for a politics watcher, and a small glimpse into a campaign that I have followed from (somewhat) afar.

The next three days will be frantic and then it will all be over. Ish.

I expect a long night on Tuesday and think we may have a few more ups and downs between now and when we know who arrives first after walking along the long and winding road to the White House.

Polls, Predictions and Probabilities...Oh My!

Voting day is nearly here and, not surprisingly, the chatter and speculation as to who will win has intensified each day we get closer to November 6th. Also not surprisingly, each side has expressed confidence that they will be successful.

So where are we? Can anyone say with confidence that they will deliver the goods on Tuesday?

Certainly no one can say with any certainty that they will win. The simple fact is that there is an awful lot of noise in the air relating to polls, predictions and probabilities (...oh my!). 

Let's consider a few points.

1. In a close race, it is imperative that a candidate project confidence and predict victory. And this is a close race. We are not in a race where it is clear who will win and the poor other guy / girl is left to say things like "we'll have to wait for the voters to decide" - something which, if you read between the lines, is more like "please God, let it end."

No, we are in a race in which the polling noise, economic environment and sense of political division all open the door to multiple predictions from state to state. As of this morning, Real Clear Politics showed 11 "toss-up" states - in effect the states that will decide the Presidency.

In such an environment, a candidate needs to make sure their base is sufficiently energized to get out and vote. And, for those few (but potentially decisive) who are waffling or undecided they need to convey a sense of momentum. You will see this from both tickets and their supporters, so see it for what it is.

2. At this stage in the campaign, it sometimes seems like there are as many polls as there are voters. With so many polls coming out, it is important to consider the source, the sample, the methodology and the history of the polling firm.

As noted in earlier posts, Nate Silver's Five Thirty Eight blog at the New York Times is a must read. This is especially true if you have an interest in better understanding polling and how one might view the varying results from the different polls out there.

The model used by Mr. Silver doesn't just average out polls, it weights them by taking into account things like methodology and sample, among others. Knowing whether a polling house is more traditionally Republican or Democratic leaning is a variable. Phone versus on-line samples is a variable.  Consistency in terms of results and accuracy is a variable.

All to say, a poll can be commissioned to suggest many things and its results can be read many ways. Also consider the fact that the real polls which actually drive a candidate's behaviour are the ones we never see. Polling is instructive and indicative, no more. 

3. Building on the subject of polls we have another topic that has come up with more frequency over the past week - particularly in relation to the Silver blog. It is the question of probabilities. 

Sites like Silver's, Real Clear Politics and others are playing in the world of probabilities. The problem is that people tend to gravitate around the numbers they provide at the expense of the story.

If you only took a cursory glance at Five Thirty Eight you would likely look to the right at the forecasts for vote-share and electoral college votes. If you did so, you would miss a regular and frank explanation as to the rationale behind those numbers.

This rationale does not suggest certainty, it suggests probability. Odds, if you will. For this reason, I find aggregators such as this one helpful in cutting through the polling noise and allowing one to make sense of the landscape.

And yet, blogs like Silver's have come under criticism from the right as being biased towards the Democrats. 

The thing is, probabilities which factor in a host of variables are more likely to be accurate than any one poll. This does not mean that the outcome they suggest as probable is a certaintly; it is just to say it is more probable based on the information available.

My take? The criticism of Silver is a case of shoot the messenger. I would wager that the internal polling of the right is aligned with his probable outcomes.

Given the points above about confidence and projecting momentum, if Silver is correct (which I think he is) and influential on the media narrative (which he certainly is), it is natural that the Romney campaign / supporters would come out against him.

***  

Pity the voter who has yet to make up their mind. Between candidate predictions, a plethora of polls and talk about probabilities there is a lot of noise out there. How one hears it can influence how one votes.

Factor in ads and newspaper editorials and it gets noisier. And tomorrow we have the final jobs report before election day.

All of it makes one wonder: who is more eager for November 6th to come and go - the voter or the candidates?  

Nine More Days Until the Next Four Years

Single digits. In terms of days before the U.S. election, we are into single digits. With nine days to go, the two tickets are busily criss-crossing the country and dropping into and out of the swing states that will decide the Presidency.

With nine days to go Super PACs and other lobby / public advocacy groups are making their own final pushes, reaching out through advertising and trying to make their case as to who would be best placed (or more often arguing who is worst placed) to lead the U.S.

And with nine days to go the media is following it all and stoking a sense of anticipation about a close race and a night - November 6th - that will set the tone for the next four years in American politics.

This is the homestretch.

...cue CNN dramatic music with a voice over by a visibly excited Wolf Blitzer.

***

When you boil it all down, there are essentially two things on which the Obama and Romney campaigns are each focused in these final days:

1. Convince the very few remaining undecided voters to vote for them; and
2. Make sure that their committed voters - their base - is mobilized and ready to get out and vote.

Of the two, the second is probably the most important given that there is such a small slice of the electorate on the fence.

Getting one's base energized, engaged and out on voting day is crucial. At this late stage the candidate who is best able to deliver on this front will likely win.

Voter mobilization will be important for a couple of reasons. The first, and most obvious, is the need to get your supporters out and voting in those areas where you need them the most.

Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, New Hampshire and states like them will decide the campaign. Polling in many of these states is close and therefore making sure your people vote is critical.

Second, while the Electoral College will decide the Presidency both candidates would also like to be able to secure the moral victory by capturing the popular vote. To this end, running up high margins in those states in which you expect to win is also important.

This second point is particularly important for President Obama. As things stand, he is forecast to win the Presidency (most aggregators are giving him odds of anywhere from 60-40 to 75-25).

However, the popular vote is something that could well go to Mr. Romney. Capturing both would do President Obama a world of good as he prepares to tackle the economy and other challenging issues.

Tough decisions are required in the months and years ahead. It would be better for the President to be able to make them without wearing the label of "the guy the majority of Americans voted against."

***

The point above leads one to start thinking more about 10 days from now and beyond. About what America looks like after this campaign and how it will move through the next few years.

Make no mistake, this is an incredibly divided country. And it is a divided country with big challenges on its plate and tough decisions ahead.

Here are some questions to consider...

1. Post-November 6th, the U.S. will be able to turn the page on the campaign and rhetoric, and focus on the issues at hand?

2. Is the U.S. prepared to have a real conversation about taxes and tax policy?

3. Are the elected officials - House, Senate and the President - finally prepared to get back to the business of governing the country?

A side-story to these questions concerns the Republicans. What might a loss mean to a party already being pulled in two directions? How does the party and the Tea Party react to defeat and what does that mean for American politics?

***

We are in the homestretch and the final sprint is underway. In nine days time (or thereabouts, depending on late returns and potential court challenges) we will know who will be President of the U.S. for the next four years.

The answer to that question, however, opens up the door to many, many others. After the campaign, the real work begins.

Entering the Home Stretch of the Long and Winding Road...to the White House

Part of a continuing series on the U.S. Presidential Election. For more reading, be sure to check out the earlier posts: here, here, here,

here and

here. 

Last night the fourth and final debate of this 2012 U.S. Presidential campaign was held. With the conclusion of that debate we have entered the home stretch; the final two weeks before election day.

In fairness, though, calling it a final two weeks does not do justice to the next fourteen days. No, what we can expect is something that would better be described as frantic race to the finish of what has become an incredibly close race.

So what should we watch for?

In an earlier post, I referenced six things to keep an eye on...

1. Momentum
2. Who's spending money and time where
3. Polling, especially at the state level in the key swing states
4. Voter enthusiasm
5. The economy
6. Wild cards like Libya, Iran, Super PAC activity, voting irregularities / suppression.

How things play out under these broad areas or themes will go a long way towards giving clarity about the final two weeks and what we can expect on November 6th.

***

Currently, if you have a look at Nate Silver's excellent blog or Intrade you see that President Obama remains the favourite. The degree to which he is the favourite varies among such composites, but in all cases a key driver of the modelled outcome is the small leads he holds in the various swing states.

However, there continues to be a heavy focus on the national numbers - things like Gallup, the various media-sponsored tracking polls, etc. Those numbers tell a story which now favours Governor Romney.

Those numbers are important, without question. But in my opinion, their importance is less about the race we see now and more about an outcome with which we could be presented.

At this time there is a possibility that President Obama could win the Presidency but lose the popular vote. The probability is still low, but it has been increasing with each new national poll that shows Governor Romney with momentum.

Under such a scenario, the potential for real progress in the U.S. in the areas in which it is sorely needed is limited. Further complicating things is a Congress that will likely be split between the two parties (Republican House, Democratic Senate).

A country that is already severely polarized would become more so. That's not good for anyone - American or otherwise.

***

Quick trivia question - on November 6th, 2012, which state will likely lay claim to having the most lawyers per capita within its borders?

One other scenario has been on my mind lately; namely whether we have the potential for an election like the one we saw in 2000. This time around replace the state of Florida with the state of Ohio.

As President Obama's margins get thinner, all roads appear to be leading to Ohio. For the President, the state represents a firewall against a Romney surge elsewhere. For Romney it is a must-have, as without it his path to 270 becomes extremely difficult (though technically not impossible).

For these reasons one cannot overstate the bastion of hyper-political activity the Buckeye state will become between now and November 6th. Unfortunately, with so much at stake the concern about voting irregularity becomes legitimate.

Florida 2000 is still fresh in people's minds, as are the suggestions of irregularity in Ohio in 2004. In both cases, the White House was delivered to the Republicans. This time around, expect both parties to be on the ground, in large numbers, contesting anything and everything that they can.

All of which leads to the possibility of a 2000-redux. We might not know who wins right away.

***

Last night the debates offered President Obama and Governor Romney a chance to make their final arguments to a national audience. Now they take those arguments on the road.

To Virginia and Wisconsin. And Nevada and Colorado. Perhaps to Pennsylvania and North Carolina.  Likely to Florida. Definitely to Iowa. And yes, to Ohio.

Yet for all that work, money, time and energy it is still quite likely that we could get to the morning of November 6th and still be unsure as to who will win.

This is why I am A Guy Watching Politics.

The Devil is in the Details - what does Obama 2.0 look like?

On Monday the final debate in the 2012 U.S. Presidential election campaign will be held. Following that debate, we will enter the homestretch - a frantic two week period during which the candidates and their parties will do all they can to close the deal with the voter.

One thing I will be looking for as we head into that period is the degree to which either candidate looks to move beyond a "thematic campaign", and starts to be more specific as to what the voters could expect from either a first Romney or second Obama term. Of particular interest to me is the Obama campaign.

***

The Obama campaign has been criticized for not doing enough to define for the voter what they can expect if the President is elected to a second term. Instead the approach they have taken has been to: (a) attempt to cast doubts about what a Romney Presidency would mean; and (b) articulate a more high-level thematic description of a second term.

I see this as a weakness and a potential problem.

In 2008, Mr. Obama could adopt such an approach. After eight years of George W. Bush, many Americans were looking for something new and different. They were looking for hope and change; they were looking for an ideal within which they could see themselves and their aspirations.

The 2008 Obama campaign was ideally suited for the electorate to which it presented itself. This time around, things are different and more is expected.

To start, the President has a record in office that he needs to defend/promote. In this regard, I think his campaign is doing reasonably well. Building on the Clinton DNC narrative, the campaign has done a good job of defining the scope of the challenges they encountered and the impact of the measures taken in response.

What they haven't done as well is describe what the next four years would look like.

The Obama campaign has thus far not really defined what they would do in response to an historically high unemployment rate. They have not defined how they plan to address the deficit. We know what their goals are, but don't have as much visibility on the "how we get there" side of the equation.

This criticism can equally be directed at the Romney campaign, but there is a difference. After four years in office, President Obama should have a better sense as to the plans ahead. He should have more to offer. And in fairness, I suspect he does.

The problem is that they are not sharing it. They are playing it safe during the campaign because everyone knows that there are still difficult times ahead, with difficult choices to made. Romney is doing the same, but as the challenger he will get more of a free pass.

The thing is, people expect more of a President who promised so much. In 2008, Mr. Obama eloquently captured and articulated people's hopes. This time around, I think that while most voters appreciate the scope of the challenges he faced upon taking office, they nevertheless want to see more of a plan.

The Long and Winding Road...to the White House (part 3)

Welcome to part 3 of The Long and Winding Road...to the White House.  Follow the links if you would like to read part 1 or part 2.

Last night brought us the latest milestone in what is becoming a fascinating campaign to watch - the second Presidential debate. President Obama and Governor Romney squared off in a town hall-style debate, each with their own goals.

For President Obama the objective was to put in a stronger performance than the widely criticized one in Denver. A strong performance was seen as crucial given the momentum Romney had been enjoying since the first debate; momentum which had eaten considerably into Obama's lead and in the process was making the race extremely close.

For Governor Romney, the objective was to hold onto the initiative and continue to make progress on selling himself to voters. He needed to build on the success of Denver and enable people to credibly see him as President.

In many respects, both men accomplished their objectives in a debate which the President appeared to win. Obama delivered a performance which should re-energize his base (and ideally support ongoing fundraising) and which more succinctly drew sharp distinctions between the two candidates.

Romney, although considered by many to be the loser, gave a competent performance (with a few exceptions - see below). He was at his best when laying out his argument as to why Americans were worse off - an argument which could prove decisive in those states hardest hit by the recession.

Polling over the next several days will tell us more about how Americans feel heading into the final debate on Monday and then the homestretch. But as you anxiously await those polls, here are some things on my mind after last night:

1. What did women think? The debate has put women front and centre as the demographic that could hold the keys to the White House.

After last night, I am not sure whether to wonder if Romney will get women voters, or whether to wonder does this guy actually get women voters? Some of his comments last night - binders, planned parenthood, and reminiscing about his female chief of staff leaving work to cook for her family in response to a question on pay equity - felt like they were from left field. Or 1950.

2. Bipartisanship and the Romney record in Massachusetts.  See, if his record was so stellar why: (a) did he veto over 800 bills as Governor - hardly an example of bipartisanship; (b) does he not have a hope of winning in the state? The ironic thing is that the one area in which he demonstrated a real openness to bipartisanship is on the one accomplishment he avoids talking about - Romneycare.

3. Libya. On a subject on which Obama should have been on the ropes, Romney conspired to drop the ball (albeit aided by the moderator). But rest assured, this issue is not going away and it could well be what Romney leads with on Monday in the foreign policy debate.

It will be interesting to see to what extent foreign policy has an impact in what should be almost exclusively an economy-driven election.

4. Which Obama is the real Obama - last night's version or that fellow who was on stage in Denver? And which one will we see in Florida on Monday? The juxtaposition between the two debates was actually striking. There was a sharpness, where in Denver we saw rambling. There were clear, thoughtful messages.  And importantly, the President was engaged and (particularly through the last half) engaging.

5. The Clinton narrative is now the Obama narrative. I have mentioned this before, but it bears repeating. The Obama campaign is essentially now a road-show of the Clinton speech from the DNC in September. And I mean that in a good way.

I recently read an article on the relationship between the Clintons and Obama, including the preparation of that speech. This was not an Obama campaign speech delivered by the former President. This was Clinton looking to set the terms of the election and frame the voting booth question.

And now you hear those lines he and his advisors crafted being spoken by the President on the hustings, on that stage last night and by a host of supporters in spin rooms and in the media.

***

So, what next? My thinking is that last night essentially re-set the campaign and effectively put us on course for a roller-coaster, 3-week election for the Presidency.  I think Romney's momentum has been blunted such that we are left with a campaign which either could win.

Governor Romney has shown us over the past two weeks that he can win. President Obama showed us last night that he can fight. We have one more debate before we enter the homestretch. This will be interesting.

The Long and Winding Road...to the White House (part 2)

Welcome to part 2 of The Long and Winding Road...to the White House. You can read part one here.

The U.S. Presidential campaign is about to enter an important phase. With only three full weeks to go, the race has tightened considerably. This week will feature the second Presidential debate - a debate many see as critical to President Obama's chances of recapturing the momentum.

While we will be watching, tweeting and writing about the debate here at A Guy Watching Politics (@PoliticWatcher on Twitter), we would be remiss to view this week, or the remaining ones solely through the lens of the debates. As always there is a lot going on.

One aspect of the race that I want to talk about focuses on the role of the running mates. Last week we had the Biden-Ryan debate; a debate which arguably did more than the first Obama-Romney did to lay out the actual choice Americans are being asked to make.

Moving out of that debate and back onto the hustings, the role of the running mate will start to become more important. This is particularly the case for Paul Ryan.

***

The Romney campaign is essentially one, long tight-rope walk. It is a walk that needs to be simultaneously mindful of the base it needs to energize and the moderate, swing voters it needs to get onside.  As such, the potential for missteps is great, as evidenced here.

Cue Paul Ryan.

Over the coming weeks his job is to keep the base engaged. He is there to remind them what a danger Obama poses to their views of government and society; to show that the Romney-Ryan ticket is one that is sensitive to the more socially-conservative values that the Republican / Tea Party base considers their own.

Doing so allows Mr. Romney to focus on the real prize - the moderates and those who consider themselves to be neither Republican or Democrat. This is a slice of the electorate which more closely resembles the voters that elected him Governor of Massachusetts.

Mr. Romney simply cannot get these voters onside if he embraces a more right-wing or Tea Party tone. But given the closeness of the race he cannot afford to alienate either them or the Republican base. Mr. Ryan offers him the ability to speak to both simultaneously. It's like political tag-team wrestling.

Over the remaining three weeks, I suspect we will see more of the moderate Mitt Romney, while his running mate rouses the base. Yes there are risks, not the least of which is the potential for unscripted or particularly partisan rhetoric by Mr. Ryan that can become a story and detract from the Romney message.  

But overall these are risks worth taking. Between Ryan and the Super PACs, Mr. Romney has the chance to effectively campaign on multiple fronts - with multiple messages - at the same time. If this is done successfully, it could prove decisive.

All to say, there is a lot to look at between now and November 6th...