Barack obama

Everyone says that the debates don't change the dynamics of a presidential race very often. President Barack Obama better hope that remains the case this year. Last night's debate wasn't even close. Mitt Romney thumped Obama in Denver. It was, as they say, an old-fashioned ass-kicking. Any Democrat who pretends otherwise is either deluding themselves or trying to kid you. Will it shift the dynamics of the election? Perhaps not. The best Obama's supporters could say last night is that the President avoided the kind of blunder that might hand Romney an obvious advantage. Maybe so but that kind of defensive mindset seemed somehow to have seeped into Obama last night. He seemed sluggish, even lethargic, hesitant, distracted and oddly unable to land any heavy punches on Romney.

‘Are you better off than you were four years ago?’ That was the question Ronald Reagan told Americans to ask themselves when choosing their President in 1980, and it's a line Mitt Romney's campaign has been hoping would work for them this time around. ‘The president can say a lot of things, but he can’t tell you you are better off,’ Paul Ryan told a crowd in North Carolina last month. And it might be one of the ‘zingers’ Romney throws out in tonight’s debate. But the attack isn't looking nearly as potent against Obama as it did against Jimmy Carter. For one thing, Ryan's claim might not actually be true. Sure, the unemployment rate in August (8.1 per cent) was still slightly higher than it was when Obama took office in January 2009 (7.

Expect to hear Barack Obama talking about ‘economic patriotism’ in tomorrow’s first Presidential debates. The idea is a simple one: that American’s should keep their money within the United States, place their deposits in American banks, and pay the full measure of their taxes. It’s providing an effective way to undermine Romney’s complex financial arrangements which place much of his money in offshore tax havens. By doing so, Obama claims, he is proving himself a poor patriot. In a new campaign advert, the President argues: 'It's time for a new economic patriotism, rooted in the belief that growing our economy begins with a strong, thriving middle class.

Failed presidencies have long half-lives. Just ask Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakis. Jimmy Carter's legacy wasn't the only reason they lost but they certainly received no assistance from the great peanut farmer's record in office either. Mitt Romney has a similar problem. The memory of George W Bush's unhappy presidency remains all too fresh. It makes life more difficult for Romney just as it eases Barack Obama's path to a second term. Bush's legacy doesn't grant Obama a free pass but it does give him a plausible-sounding way of explaining delays, setbacks and even the occasional failure. Look at the mess we inherited! It ain't Morning yet but the darkest hour is past.

Mitt Romney has been caught saying what he really thinks – or in modern journalistic jargon has committed a 'gaffe'. Serious American commentators believe that his election challenge is all but over after he declared, that 47 per cent of the electorate will vote for Obama no matter what because they were 'dependent upon government'. They saw themselves as victims, Romney explained. They believed the government had a responsibility to care for them, and that 'they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. ..They will vote for this president no matter what. . . . These are people who pay no income tax.' To Romney’s mind, poor and working class Americans are the corrupted stooges of the left.

In America, the convention duel is over and there can now be little doubt that Barack Obama won it. Whereas Mitt Romney saw only a very modest boost in his polling numbers during the Republican convention, Obama has received a much bigger bounce, not only wiping out any advantage Romney gained the previous week, but actually leaving him with a bigger lead than he'd enjoyed before. On both Gallup and Rasmussen's national tracking polls, he now enjoys a commanding five-point lead. And that could well continue to grow: the Gallup number still includes responses from before the Democratic convention even began. Nate Silver's forecasting model  now gives Obama an 80.7 per cent chance of securing re-election — his highest of the campaign. And how did Obama achieve this?

I’m indebted to John Rentoul for drawing my attention to this report of a talk given by Karl Rove to mega donors at the Republican National Convention. Rove is an advisor to American Crossroads, a Republican fundraising organisation; and, having been one of Dubya's chiefs, he remains a vital strategic voice in the party. He explained how Mitt Romney might win: “’The people we’ve got to win in this election, by and large, voted for Barack Obama,’ Rove said, in a soothing, professorial tone, explaining why the campaign hadn’t launched more pointed attacks on the president’s character. 'If you say he’s a socialist, they’ll go to defend him.

If Paul Ryan looked and sounded like the tyro lawyer in a John Grisham movie delivering his first big courtroom speech then that's because, in a way, he was just that kind of rookie performing upon the biggest stage of his life. Happily he had Matt Scully on his team so there was reason to think Ran's speech would be well-crafted at least. And it was. Scully put lipstick on Sarah Palin four years ago, writing a speech that hoodwinked us all for a time. He had a hefty hand in Ryan's too. Not that Ryan is another Palin, you understand. Even so striking the correct balance between substance and style and content and tone with this kind of speech is pretty damn difficult.

At The American Conservative, Noah Millman argues that Barack Obama's administration is the kind of small-c conservative leadership Thomas Friedman and other so-called centrists have been asking for: [T]he Obama Administration has been a quintessentially small-”c” conservative one, in that it has tried its best to preserve the status quo in just about every area. Its health care plan aimed to achieve universality with minimal disruption to existing insurance arrangements (which is why it was a good deal for insurance companies). Its response to the financial crisis was centered on securing the financial position of the large banks.