Barack obama

In the end, Barack Obama won re-election comfortably. The Obama political team again demonstrated its ability to get the vote out where it needed it. The margin might have been narrower than in 2004. But it was, in purely operational terms, a more impressive victory; triumphing against the backdrop of a still stuttering economy. For the Republicans, there’s much to reflect on. The party’s demographic problems are now too serious to ignore. In 2004, Bush won 41% or 44% of the Hispanic vote—depending on which pollster you want to use. But this time, Obama won 72% of Hispanics.

Differences between the US and the UK are often commented upon. But the storm ‘Sandy’ this week has highlighted one in particular. It is no criticism of either President Obama or Governor Romney to say that it seems strange to me to see them hugging and otherwise comforting people who have lost their homes and in some cases all their possessions. I keep testing – and then mentally blocking – the images of a similar thing happening here. I am trying to imagine my mental state had my house and few possessions been washed away only to see, emerging from the mist, the figure of Gordon Brown. He would be surrounded by legions of cameras and reporters, of course, otherwise there would be no point in him being there.

The presidential debates are over, and Mitt Romney is within touching distance of the White House. Barack Obama was the better candidate – just - in last night’s third and final presidential debate, on the attack and with his trademark eloquence restored. But he needed to deliver a knockout blow to Mitt Romney, and failed. Everyone knows Obama is great with words. What is not entirely clear to voters is that Mitt Romney isn’t evil. As it turned out, Romney came across as moderate, articulate and well-informed- and a plausible commander-in-chief. The next election may very well be his. A snap CNN Poll called it 48-40 for Obama, wider than the 37-33 of the second debate but a far cry from the 71-10 victory Romney was granted in the first debate.

I have a piece in this week’s magazine on the fall of Barack Obama. I’m not saying he may not still win, just that even if he does he will be a diminished President. It’s available online here.

Barack Obama won the second of the three Presidential debates last night but he did not beat Mitt Romney as thoroughly as he had been beaten by the challenger in their first encounter. If you were compiling an aggregate score for the debates so far the President would still be behind. I doubt Republicans will react to this modest reverse for Romney's fortunes with the kind of panic that liberals embraced two weeks ago. The Democratic meltdown helped turn a setback into a rout. Suddenly momentum - whatever that is - was with Romney and it was easy for Republican raiding parties to mop up Democratic stragglers and put them to the sword. Discipline matters in victory but it matters even more in defeat. In truth, Romney's fightback had begun - albeit slowly - before the first debate.

Ahead of the second presidential debate tonight, it's worth taking stock of the task facing each candidate in the last three weeks of the campaign. It is clear that Mitt Romney has received a sizeable bounce since the first debate, closing the gap to Barack Obama by probably around 4 points nationally. Nevertheless, it looks like he still remains about one point adrift of the President, and Nate Silver's Fivethirtyeight forecast makes Obama the clear favourite, with the odds against his victory at about 1/2. Before the debates, talk of swing states and the electoral college seemed superfluous. Obama looked likely to win the popular vote by around four points, a margin which would guarantee him the 270 electoral votes he needs.

The conventional wisdom dictates that debates between VP candidates are nights that should only interest political anoraks. But the last eight days have not been good for conventional wisdom: remember how boring Mitt Romney was meant to have no chance against a man of Barack Obama’s élan? Far more than any recent presidential debate, last night’s vice-presidential one was genuinely absorbing, pitting two contrasting, combative and forthright politicians against each other. They were helped by the performance of the moderator, Martha Raddatz. She was far more willing to engage the candidates than Jim Lehrer last week, providing the best possible opportunity for a stimulating debate. And that is certainly what we got.

OK, cards on the table: I'm a big Obama fan. I desperately hope he wins next month, and I'm reasonably confident he will. But even to my biased eye, he clearly put in the weaker performance of last night's debate. He knew his stuff, and had plenty of good points, but threw them out in such a way that none of them really stuck. ‘Is the reason that Governor Romney is keeping all these plans to replace secret because they're too good?’ would have been a great line had it not been smuggled out at the end of an overlong response. The President's answers were just too waffling to make an impact. It's very rare that I watch Obama speak and think ‘I could've said something better’. In fact, I don't think it's ever happened before. But it did a few times last night.