Romney should be worried. He needs to translate the lessons learned from his loss today to results-driven changes to his campaign strategy, particularly: taking control of the agenda, turning Newt Gingrich’s strengths into weaknesses, and negating the effects of his reluctance to publishing his tax returns….

The President’s forceful tone helps reactivate his restive base

Liberal Democrats have been critical of the President over the past several months. These same voters where a key part of his election success in 2008.  The President’s fighting spirit may revive their confidence in him, and their commitment is critical in helping the president mobilize fundraising and voter support through primary season.

The content of the speech appeals to key demographics. 

The Construction industry’s 22% unemployment rate is two times the national average. Many of these unemployed are union members, a core constituency of the Democratic Party. Connecting rebuilding educational institutions to improved education gives teachers confidence that the president is on their side, and preempts some risk of Republican opposition. [Rick Perry has a strong relationship with some of the largest public works construction companies in the US.]

However, men are being much harder hit by the recession than women, and men have a much stronger affiliation with the Republican Party.

The issuance of the President’s formal proposal next week, followed by the President’s public appearances to promote it will need to offer a strong message to male workers. The Republicans have been very effective in tapping into this anger to gain supporters.

The proposal will give a large benefit to small business owners, a demographic that is being heavily targeted by both parties.

Democrats targeted small business owners in the 2006 and 2008 elections with much success, but Republicans were able to capture them in 2010, and the Republican candidates have made much mention of them in their campaign rhetoric.  A payroll tax cut offers small business owners a tangible incentive in which the president can use to claim credit in next years election.

The speech will give the President’s approval rating about a 5-7% boost, but this could be short-lived.

The presidential campaign and deficit reduction plan under debate this fall could rob the President of keeping Congress focused on job growth. Partisan bickering around the deficit reduction Super Committee’s proposal due later this month could rob public support for him.  The President will need to use his bully pulpit power to keep the proposal, strategically position it to place blame on Republicans for any potential failure, and hold his approval rating closer to 50%.

Passage of the Jobs act could be a boon to New York and New Jersey

The region will benefit from the influx of capital for public works projects that have been tabled due to budget cuts. New Jersey has been gradually trending Republican over the past few elections, so it will be important for Democrats to use these carrots to regain New Jersey voters’ loyalty. The move also helps preempt any potential entrance of Chris Christie in the presidential race. He has been a strong, vocal opponent of infrastructure spending.

The candidates will focus on attacking Perry

• It’s crucial for them to erode his poll lead, as it has become more difficult for Romney and Bachmann to garner attention since Perry has entered the race.

Rick Perry will underperform expectations

• Perry will have a difficult time offering palatable responses on some of his controversial stances on issues. He may also be unprepared, as he has been spending his time handling the Texas wildfires.

Perry may come across as too volatile and testy

• His debate style tends to be swing from lack luster to volatile; during his 2010 Texas Gubernatorial debates against Republicans Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Rick Medina, Perry showed a cavalier, frat-boy attitude toward the moderators. If Perry comes across as too volatile, he runs the risk of being compared to Rick Santorum.

Mitt Romney’s business experience will play well

• Romney’s jobs speech yesterday will add to his performance tonight.  He will come across prepared and organized.  He will contrast his business experience against Rick Perry’s career-politician background; Perry will be challenged to offer a compelling response to this.

However, the debate will have little effect on current rankings

• The gap between Romney and Perry will narrow (the are tied when considering the +/- 5% polling margin of error), but its unlikely Bachmann will gain ground. Here campaign is faltering. The departure of her top two managers will have deleterious effect on her long-term viability.

This will be one of the last appearances for Santorum, Huntsman and Cain

• These three are having difficult time qualifying for upcoming debates because of their low poll numbers. If they don’t drop out soon, they will definitely do so by release of their 3rd quarter campaign finance reports in early October.

**Signing off for a media interview…come back tomorrow for my analysis**

Paul’ point about Iran wanting to get weapons because it’s neighbors have nukes is interesting point but it’s really about the failure of the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty, and the US  to prevent the Russia and China selling its nuclear technology to an aggressive regime.

Paul & Santorum are not getting as questions from the moderators as are Romney, Bachmann, and Pawlenty.

Sometimes Gingrich sounds smart; sometimes muddled.

Why did Pawlenty just give a shout out to Perry? Basically he’s saying, yes I’m up here keeping the seat warm for when the new B.M.O.C. shows up.

Feigned sincerity in some of Pawlenty’s responses.

Debate questions are terrible. And the event is not very well moderated. More of a B grade political spectacle.

Michelle Bachmann forgets that States force car owners to buy environmentally compliant mufflers; Property owners to buy smoke detectors; construction companies to put in exit signs, etc.

Romney wouldn’t have the the constitutional power to waive the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

Pawlenty talks heads of people with his mention of “strict constructionists.” He should just say “Judge appointees would interpret the constitution as is. Not how they think is it should be.”

Something up with the Fox’s Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down poll. I don’t think the results are accurate. And it is a snap poll, so you can’t use the numbers to say that larger public believes the same. Not a scientific poll.

Tea Party supporters loath the Super Committee. Gingrich’s statements about it meant to get them to support him.

This is probably the last official campaign event for Rick Santorum and Herman Cain. Both are unelectable.

Bachmann excites the audience with her Sanctity of Human Life comment. She has a good ability to get the audience to react positively to what she is saying.

Paul libertarian views are consistent/compelling. Which may explain why is so popular with young conservatives.

Gingrich nativist remarks sounds very similar to the rhetoric of the Know Nothing/American Party of the 1850s. A party built around keeping European immigrants out.

Immigration Boards? Sounds like Death Panels – more government.

I’ll have to write more about why Sharia Law keeps coming up in campaign speeches. Suffice to say..it’s a poll tested topic found to activate Republican voters by tapping into their stereotypical views of Muslims.

Regardless of the veracity of her statements; Bachmann knows how to cheerlead – a strong trait found in successful campaigners of the past: e.g. G. W. Bush, Bill Clinton.

The majority of voters don’t know what the laws Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd Frank legislate, nor are they going to be aware of business concepts like Six Sigma. Gingrich would do better if he would statements simple/understandable. But that’s probably one of the reasons his candidacy is faltering

74% of Iowa Republican primary voters are Evangelical Christians

Words like ObamaCare and Death Panels are meant to change the perspective of the listener on an issue.  The non partisan reference to healthcare is the Affordable Care & Patient Protection Act of 2012. Fun thing about these statements they become part of the public’s common vernacular. Even if one doesn’t support the issue, the words end up creeping into their talk.

Regarding Michelle Bachmann’s background, it is hard for a House of Representative member to get elected president because they can’t claim credit for being solely responsible for making something happen. Congress is a team effort.

I recently read an article on MSNBC, which sparked my thinking about American History. The article discusses some recent research conducted by psychologist and social scientist Dacher Keltner on how the “Haves” show less empathy than the “Have Nots.” Keltner argues that the “the philosophical battle over economics, taxes, debt ceilings and defaults that are now roiling the stock market is partly rooted in an upper class ‘ideology of self-interest.’ This is something that our society needs to start considering as we move forward to restructure government spending. We must get back to a government that balances self-interest with the common good.

Historically, Keltner’s proposition was not always the case.  Back in the 1700s, there was a sense of noblesse oblige in our society, that is, those with wealth, power, and prestige saw that they had a responsibility to help those who are were less fortunate. The framers of our constitution subscribed to this idea. They extolled a virtue of Civic Republicanism where citizens contribute to the public good by performing public service. The framers enshrined the practical implementation of this idea in their design of Congress. Elected officials would serve in Congress for a short time, contributing to the common good, and then go back to their chosen vocations.

The framers also took great pains at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia to design a government that balanced both the needs of property owners (the Haves) and the less fortunate (the Have Nots). James Madison wrote in Federalist10 that our political system was made to facilitate balanced competition across all the various interests.

Sadly, we have lost that idea; balance has become an archaic concept. The “Haves” have a greater opportunity to influence the system, leaving the “Have Nots” disenfranchised with little influence over the crafting of legislation.

In many ways the fault lies with voters. On average, 50% of the voting eligible population chooses to stay home in presidential elections, 70% in midterm elections, and 80-to-90% in state and local elections, and these populations are largely composed of the “Have Nots.” It is their obligation to not remain mute. Their voices would compel elected officials to more actively balance their needs with other interests.

Another problem contributing to a lack of empathy is that we have become susceptible to the rhetoric and marketing techniques politicians use to influence us. Mass marketing techniques going back to the 1950s, like those that we see on Mad Men and in television commercials, are so ingrained in what we hear from President Barack Obama, House Speaker John Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the GOP presidential candidates, and other key politicians, that voters are sold on political ideas like they are on Ivory Soap or Tide.

Politics is no longer about discussing the pros and cons of legislative proposals, but about what message is going to get us most excited about what the politician says. When we hear talking points that frame liberal and conservative issues, such as “unemployment benefits makes people lazy,” “death panels,” and “death taxes” we’re compelled to believe the rhetoric and discount the meaning.

What most people don’t realize is that professionals have designed these statements, and tested them in focus groups to find the ones that best sell us on the idea. By taking these statements at face value, and not questioning them, we ultimately get legislation that harms the common good. And in many cases, these policies have consequences that don’t get considered or discussed.

For example, research conducted at Harvard University on the impact of the 2003 Medicare Reform Act has found that mortality rates increased about 5% after the law went into effect. In many cases, this was due to limits the law put on treatment options physicians had at their disposal. Thinking about today, on the basic level, the proposal to change Medicare to a voucher system sounds good. It will save money. But what does that ultimately mean for an 85-year-old woman living in a nursing home, sick, with no family, and no savings? Is she supposed to take a holiday from medication that is not covered by the voucher?

Washington also needs to put some strong thinking around eliminating waste. There are, for example, 1,200 redundant programs focusing on hunger; $350 billion dollars goes uncollected every year by the IRS, and billions of dollars are spent on expensive weapons programs despite the fact that the Pentagon has them doing little to increase our military effectiveness.

The bottom line: The “Haves” must develop some empathy toward the “Have Nots,” the “Have Nots” must start participating in the political process, and we all must show our representatives that we expect more from them.

The Census Bureau has made substantial counting errors in the past, in 1990 for example, the census undercounted 8 million people. The history of the census has seen many challenges by state and city governments. However, compared to states, localities have a much greater chance winning an appeal.

The implications for the city on the distribution of federal funds is significant; the counts and Washington’s focus on spending cuts are going to converge to bring about much deeper aid cuts in years past. This coupled with a trend over the past two decades where small states get a larger per capita share of federal funds than large states.

New Yorker’s may be impacted a number of ways, including programs for the elderly and children as well as lack of federal funds to allocate toward Mass Transit improvements. To offset these losses, the city/state may have to consider some tax increases. A very unpopular proposition in today’s economic environment.

Academics have long advocated for better statistical sampling techniques to adjust for undercounting. But partisan politics, as well as the Supreme Court have played a heavy role in preventing these techniques from being implemented. 2010 was the first time in 30 years that a Democratic administration was overseeing the census. And there was fierce debate in Congress about its census methodology. Democrats traditionally prefer to over count citizens while Republicans undercount.

It’s too late for any corrections to influence reapportionment, but a mid decade redistricting is not outside the range of possibilities. The may be able to use the Census Bureau’s annual American Community Survey results coupled with an appeal to push the state to pursue this course of action.

The undercount may be due to the Jackson Heights, Astoria, Bayridge, and Bensonhurt’s ethnic and immigrant population concentrations. The Census typically undercounts these groups. Those neighborhoods. Have substantial non-English speaking populations with immigrants from Eastern Europe, South Asia, and China, along with large Hispanic populations, making up sizable shares of the neighborhoods.

This Thursday’s Iowa Political debate will be uncivil and contentious. Look for Mitt Romney to shine on the economy, and Michelle Bachmann on social issues.

Romney will emphasize pragmatism and compromise in how he’ll improve the economy. He’ll emphasize how the ratings agencies upgraded Massachusetts’s credit rating and how he was able to work with a Democratic state legislature to help generate business investment and jobs while he was governor.

Bachman will have a tough time discussing the economy. The candidates will attack her tea party approach. How she responds will be critical in helping distance herself from the public’s decreasing confidence in the Tea Party caucus in Congress.

Christian Evangelicals comprise 74% of the Iowa Republican electorate. Much of the rhetoric will be geared toward pleasing them. Bachmann and Pawlenty will shine. But Romney’s moderate stance, consistent with his general election campaign strategy versus a primary one, will make it hard for him to make clear, unambiguous socially conservative statements on marriage and family issues.

The net result will be a tie between Bachman and Romney. And this is probably one of the last official candidates appearances for Cain, Santorum, and Gingrich. Their campaigns are unviable.

However, all bets are off if Perry joins in. He will win by default. Perry’s appearance would steal the show, and put the other candidates on the defensive.