My Closing Argument, and This Ain’t Just Rhetoric

Overview: My Main Philosophical Reason I’m Voting For Mitt.

I feel so strongly that Mitt Romney is the right choice for president that I wanted to make one last post, my closing argument as it were, in hopes of convincing that one last undecided voter out there somewhere to vote for Mitt. I wanted to explain why I, and the other authors here at Mitt Romney Central, have devoted such time, effort, emotion, and yes, money, to the cause of electing Mitt. My list of specific reasons why I like Mitt, and my counterarguments to President Obama’s case, are below. But I can sum up why I feel so strongly with this: Barack Obama’s vision for America is inconsistent with that of our founding fathers and our Constitution.

A Limited Government Preserves Freedom

Our government was founded on the principles of self-determination and freedom. Americans were not content to be told by the British government how much they should pay in taxes or what freedoms they were entitled to. So they fought a war to gain their independence. When the founding fathers then set up their own government, at the forefront of their minds was the concern for how to preserve their hard-won freedoms. So they came up with three fundamental ideas about the new federal government: (i) it should be small, split into different branches with checks and balances over each other’s power, (ii) it should share power with, and in fact have less power over citizens’ day-to-day lives than, the states, where the citizens were better represented, and (iii) our most basic freedoms should be enshrined in a Bill of Rights to make absolutely sure the federal government did not violate them. This combination of ideas, they thought, would assure, over time, that the God-given rights they had won back from their government at great cost would be preserved against tyranny.

Obama’s Vision of a Larger Government is Antithetical to Freedom.

In 2008 when Senator Obama talked of “transforming” America and saying “we can do better,” it was clear to me he was talking about fundamentally changing these key principles. He stood for a larger federal government; one that would try and take responsibility for the poor and do more for its citizens. While that may sound nice, having a government undertake that responsibility also means it must become larger, tax more (a government that undertakes to define what’s fair for all its citizens will also try and make everyone pay their “fair share”) and become more involved in our lives, much more involved than the founding fathers intended. A larger government necessarily becomes more difficult to manage, begins to take on a life of its own, and becomes very difficult to control. A larger federal government also means a shift in power from the states, where citizens can more easily control their own destiny. And once people begin to rely on government largesse, cutting the size of that government and its programs, even if the government cannot afford them (witness our overwhelming deficits and the troubles in Europe as it tries to cut back), becomes very, very difficult. People become less willing to give up that security, even if it means a loss of liberty. And they can become accustomed to the idea that the government represents someone else, not them, and that they are owed something by that government (witness appeals from the left that sound like class warfare). As a result, I believe the policies of President Obama reflect a threat to our liberty. Perhaps not immediate. Perhaps only a little. But what he wants to do, at its core, is inconsistent with the intended size and role of our government, which means we will inevitably lose a little, or a lot, of liberty. How much really depends on how much further down Obama’s road we go. And in my view, we’ve already lost too much.

Example: Obamacare.

As an illustration of what I mean, I’ll use Obamacare. It sounds nice to make sure everyone has health insurance. And there are lots of stories of people who can’t afford insurance, and how having it would benefit them greatly. I get that, and I feel for their situation. This is what Obama meant by “we can do better.” He’d like to use government resources to fix these problems. But, just like when you get your first credit card, you need to look beyond the nice things you can buy and decide whether you can really afford it, because that bill will come due at some time. As for the cost in dollars and cents, it’s clear we can’t afford Obamacare. We just can’t. It adds trillions of unfunded government outlays over the next two decades. And once these benefits are offered to citizens it’s very difficult to take them away. In addition, Obamacare has already begun to infringe on our freedoms. At its core it’s the federal government (not the state, which is the principal difference between Obamacare and Romneycare), forcing us to buy a product. Then, because it forces us to buy this product, it must go further and legislate the minimum requirements of this product (or everyone would buy the cheapest version available). That legislation now includes elements some religions find offensive. How’d we get here? By involving the federal government in something it really was never intended by the founding fathers to be involved in: providing health insurance. Further, because the IRS will be in charge of enforcing compliance with the mandate, it will need to know our personal health information. The founders’ vision of limited federal power, with express limits on what the federal government can and can’t do, has been violated by Obamacare. And having the federal government in this position simply poses a threat to our freedom. The founders knew power corrupts, and while we think we can trust the government now, we don’t always know we will be able to. When will it be your religious belief that’s infringed? Or your freedom of speech? This is why the Republicans resist President Obama so much. This is why Obamacare did not get one single Republican vote. This is why Obama’s own budget was rejected by not only Republicans but his own party. And finally this is why Mitch McConnell said it was his goal to make sure Obama only had one term: to try and make sure the damage President Obama does is not long-lasting. Obamacare is a threat to our freedom, and it’s just one example.

This Ain’t Just Rhetoric.

Let me say that this is not just rhetoric. I’m not just making an argument because I want you to vote for Mitt for some other hidden reason. This is why I’m voting for Mitt, and why I honestly believe everyone should. This is what worries me about the prospect of Obama serving another term. He has already made some strides toward “transforming” America into something I believe it was never intended to be. Obamacare was one very large step in that direction. As Vice President Biden said, it was a “[blanking] big deal.” I know the further we go down this road the more difficult it is to go back. I also know the GOP will fight Obama to preserve that liberty, which is likely to result in more gridlock at a time when our government needs to work together. Unfortunately, though, cooperating with the president can mean, and has meant, the loss of some of these liberties, which makes compromise difficult.
(more…)

Newspaper Endorsements Pour In for Romney/Ryan: NH, MA, WV, TX, MI, VA, NY, D.C.

Photo – Al Behrman / AP

Like a waterfall, newspaper editorial board endorsements for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan continue to pour in…

Foster’s Daily Democrat (NH)
Editorial
October 24, 2012

http://goo.gl/9AhMb

It’s Now Time To Decide

If you had already made up your mind going into Monday night’s presidential debate, nothing said probably changed your mind. But for those who were undecided, there certainly was some food for thought.

But what was lacking on the part of the president was a vision for the future and credibility based on the past. The current commander in chief repeatedly accused Romney of reaching back into history for failed policies of the past both home and abroad. The president summoned images of President Herbert Hoover and others which history has deemed failures. In doing so, Obama tried to gloss over his own history of failed promises — on unemployment, on balancing the budget, cutting the deficit and — as we believe — earning the respect of our overseas allies.

Admittedly, Obama’s failures center mostly around domestic policy — Romney’s strength. But as Romney pointed out Monday night, in order to be strong and respected on the international stage, the United States must be strong economically.

As readers know, there is no doubt on the part of the editorial board here at Foster’s Daily Democrat new leadership is needed from the White House. We believe all three debates — but especially the first — support that notion. We believe that, on balance, the debates have shown Mitt Romney to be the more capable and with a vision for the future — a vision President Obama has failed to offer.

On Nov. 6, we urge voters to give Mitt Romney a chance to offer the nation real hope and change.



Boston Herald
Editorial Staff
October 23, 2012

http://www.bostonherald.com

Romney’s The One

Four years ago the voters put their faith in a man who offered vague promises of hope and change at a time when any change looked like a good idea and hope was in short supply.

What this nation got in Barack Obama was a president who used an economic crisis to further his redistributionist agenda — and, not surprisingly, failed miserably at restoring American prosperity. Oh, he brought change all right — to a government-knows-best philosophy that has given us four years of high unemployment, higher gas prices, a $16 trillion deficit, and a job-killing regulatory environment.
..
Enough! This isn’t the kind of change anyone can believe in.

The other simple fact is that in Mitt Romney voters have not merely a safe and steady alternative but a proven leader and an extraordinarily skilled expert in the art of the economic turnaround.

He did that all over again for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.

What Romney knows at the core of his being is that sometimes government must step aside and sometimes it must lead.

Last night the nation saw a man who in the area of foreign policy is prepared to lead, who knows that for the United States to remain safe it must reclaim its place on the world stage.

During the last four years the world has become a more dangerous place. We can’t afford four more years of a leadership vacuum.

Not when in Mitt Romney voters have the choice of a strong, smart hand on the helm, a decent, caring man, who lives his faith, who loves his country and would serve it well. For all of those reasons, the Boston Herald is pleased to endorse Mitt Romney for president.

So much more! Click here.

#comMITTed: New Romney Facebook App Makes it Easy to Contact Friends in Swing States – USE IT!

I was just browsing TechCrunch and caught an article that talks about the cleverness of the newest, official Romney Facebook app: Commit to Mitt.

After connecting to your Facebook account, the app automatically finds all of your friends that live in swing states and — whether by private message or by posting on their timeline — makes it easy for you to encourage them to support Mitt Romney.

Honestly, I was surprised to see that I had many friends who currently live in swing states. I used the app to send each of them a personalized note, asking them to Commit to Mitt and to encourage their friends to do the same. Easy stuff.

If you’re not one for making phone calls or knocking doors, this may be the best way that you could have a personal impact on the results of the election (just 13 days from now!). Please take a moment to ask influential friends in your network to vote for Mitt Romney — let’s make sure we use this awesome tool to win it for Mitt!
(more…)

Michigan, are you listening? Debunking Obama’s Bankruptcy Spin on Auto Bailouts

Obama’s auto bailout ‘success’ is a disaster for taxpayers.

Like a toddler who likes to continually jabber a new phrase, Obama keeps blabbering “Romney said let Detroit go bankrupt! Romney said let Detroit go bankrupt!”

Here’s what our prattling President doesn’t want Americans to know:

Deceitful, smoke-’n-mirrors Obama ADOPTED Mitt Romney’s idea of a managed bankruptcy for American car makers. BUT, Obama’s mishandling of the process has proven very costly.

Romney Press – Oct 16, 2012:

Mitt Romney Will Help Our Auto Industry Become Stronger And More Competitive

As a Michigan native and the son of a car guy, Mitt Romney has always believed that a strong auto industry is an essential component of the nation’s economy. He has a plan that will help the auto industry move forward into a new era of innovation and dominance.

  • Domestic Energy Production That Aids Manufacturing: We are on the cusp of a manufacturing renaissance in the United States, and it will be made possible by an abundant supply of cheap, reliable energy within our borders. Mitt Romney will have a true all-of-the-above strategy that includes coal, natural gas, oil and other resources.

  • Trade That Works For Our Auto Industry: Our workers make the best cars in the world. We must develop markets abroad where our cars can be sold. Mitt Romney will open new markets to American automakers far more aggressively than this President has.
  • Stand Up To China And Level The Playing Field: Mitt Romney will stand up to countries like China that don’t play by the rules. Starting on day one, Mitt Romney will make clear to China that they must respect the intellectual property of American manufacturers and open their markets to American products.
  • Lower Our Corporate Tax Rate To Boost Competitiveness: Mitt Romney will reduce the corporate tax rate, so that our carmakers can compete on a level playing field both at home and around the world, and can afford to invest more in breakthrough products. He will also stop the foolish practice of imposing an extra tax on our automakers when they sell cars overseas so they can reinvest the profits here at home.
  • Get Government Out Of The Car Business: President Obama has told Detroit what kind of cars to build, implemented extraordinarily onerous regulations that will drive up the cost of each car by thousands of dollars, and to this day owns more than one quarter of General Motors. Mitt Romney will get the federal government out of the auto industry and eliminate regulations that distort the market and drive up costs.
  • A Reminder – Mitt Romney supported a managed bankruptcy process for our automakers, which is what President Obama ultimately agreed to support:

    Months After Taking Office, President Obama Finally Arrived At The Conclusion That Managed Bankruptcy Was Preferable To His Initial Strategy. “The Obama’s administration’s leading plan to fix General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC would use bankruptcy filings to purge the ailing companies of their biggest problems, including bondholder debt and retiree health-care costs, according to people familiar with the matter. … President Barack Obama’s task force has told both companies that the administration prefers this route … rather than the prolonged out-of-court process that has thus far frustrated administration officials.” (The Wall Street Journal, 3/30/09)

    The Obama Administration Ultimately Found Bankruptcy To Be The Only Way Forward. “The administration says a ‘surgical’ structured bankruptcy may be the only way forward for GM and Chrysler, and President Obama held out that prospect Monday. ‘I know that when people even hear the word ‘bankruptcy,’ it can be a bit unsettling, so let me explain what I mean,’ he said.” (The Wall Street Journal, 3/30/09)

    What did Governor Romney NOT support? Labor Union handouts, giving American companies to foreign owners, ill-considered dealership closings, and keeping government in the car business:

    President Obama’s Handling Of The Bailout Gave The United Auto Workers Union A Majority Ownership Stake In Chrysler. “The Obama administration’s decision to bail out Chrysler gave the union trust what was initially a majority ownership position of 55 percent of its shares.” (Reuters, 6/3/11)

    The Obama Administration Handed Over Control Of Chrysler To Fiat, An Italian Automaker. “Chrysler LLC, for years America’s third-biggest automaker, survived perhaps the most dire of its periodic near-death experiences in 2008 and 2009, when the federal government forced it into bankruptcy, pumped in $10 billion in taxpayer funds and put it under the control of the Italian automaker Fiat, with the auto workers union as the company’s biggest shareholder.” ((The New York Times, 7/30/12)

    President Obama’s Auto Task Force Pressed GM And Chrysler To “Close Scores Of Dealerships Without Adequately Considering The Jobs That Would Be Lost.” “President Obama’s auto task force pressed General Motors and Chrysler to close scores of dealerships without adequately considering the jobs that would be lost or having a firm idea of the cost savings that would be achieved, an audit of the process has concluded.” The New York Times, 7/18/10)

    The Obama Administration “Contributed To The Accelerated Shuttering Of Thousands Of Small Businesses” And Potentially Added “Tens Of Thousands Of Workers” To The Unemployment Lines. (CNN Money, 7/19/10)

    General Motors Now Wants The Government To Sell Its Stake In The Company, But The Obama Administration Is Resisting. “The Treasury Department is resisting a push by General Motors Co. to sell the government’s entire stake in the auto maker – the latest source of tension between two unlikely partners thrust together at the depths of the financial crisis. U.S. taxpayers kept the nation’s largest auto maker by sales afloat with a $50 billion bailout in 2009 and now own 26.5% of the Detroit company. But GM executives have grown increasingly frustrated with that ownership and the stigma of being known as ‘Government Motors.’” (The Wall Street Journal, 9/17/12)

    Taxpayers Are Taxpayers Are Currently Projected To Lose More Than $25 Billion On The Bailouts Of Auto Industry. (U.S. Treasury Department, 8/12)

    Now, you have the truth.

    Michiganders, help Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan obtain your 16 electoral votes. CAll NOW to get started. Readers, you, too, can help.

    By Lisa Benson



    Follow Jayde Wyatt on Twitter @YayforSummer

    HUGE Endorsement! Frm. John Kerry Supporter and Chrysler CEO Lee Iacocca Endorses Mitt Romney

    I can’t overstate the magnitude of this endorsement! Not only did Lee Iacocca endorse John Kerry in 2004 when Sen. Kerry was running against George W. Bush, but no one has first hand experience with auto bailouts like Mr. Iacocca. When Chrysler teetered on the brink of bankruptcy in 1979, the Government stepped up to help them in a much more responsible way than the Government did when GM and Chrysler needed help in 2008. Chrysler paid back every penny of the bailout and grew in an example of possibly the most successful bailout in U.S. history.

    The fact that Lee Iacocca is endorsing Mitt Romney tells us that the democrats have lied for years about what Mitt prescribed in his 2008 op-ed. Mitt only wants the best for the auto industry, and the democrats plan to use this issue against Mitt to protect their small lead in Michigan is unraveling.

    This endorsement comes on the heels of Mitt setting the record straight in Tuesday’s debate with President Obama as well as Mitt’s campaign releasing a forward-looking plan on what a Mitt administration will mean for the auto industry.

    UPDATE: Full op-ed of the endorsement below:

    Iacocca: America needs a turnaround, which is why I’m voting Romney

    I’ve seen a lot of situations that needed a turnaround in my time, and I know one when I see one. Trust me, America needs a turnaround.

    America is in deep trouble. After four years, economic growth is still anemic, our annual deficits were not cut in half as promised, and our staggering $16 trillion federal debt hangs over us and our kids like the plague. Our people are hurting, they can’t find jobs, they have lost a major part of their net worth, the number of Americans living in poverty is at unacceptable levels, and we just aren’t doing the things that would get our country back on the right track.

    Like any turnaround it must begin by honestly facing our problems; hope and speeches won’t get our people back to work. It will require experienced leadership that can create and lead policy change that will enable a more robust and competitive America. We need leadership that understands that government, just like American families, can’t continue to spend beyond its means. We must find leadership that won’t pander to the people, but rather will speak honestly to them about our situation, explaining in simple terms what we have to do to get back on the right track. And we need leadership that can bring us together in a sense of shared responsibility so that we can move forward as a team. All of us. As Americans.
    America needs new leadership

    Mitt Romney has successfully led both public and private sector turnarounds. He is a bright and successful man; he is a good man, a caring man, a man of integrity, family and faith. Importantly, he recognizes we are in a tough situation. With dozens of years of real world experience in the public and private sectors, he knows what he’s talking about. His policies will enable a stronger America, one in which all Americans can share. He was groomed and trained for this moment.
    The future of our country is at stake

    If you are out of work or worried about your job, having trouble making ends meet, are worried about your kids’ future or your own, or if you just have a nagging sense that as Americans we can do better than this, it’s time to wake up and stop just hoping it will all work out in a few more years. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it won’t!

    It’s time for straight talk.

    I’m asking you to vote for change that will get us moving in the right direction, and to be ready to be part of the solution. Everything depends on it. We don’t have time to waste. It’s time to make America great again.

    Vote for Mitt Romney for president.

    More Voices Join: Romney Right on Best Way to Save Auto Industry

    I said in my prior post that Mitt often comes to the right answer a couple beats before others do. Today’s Detroit News features an op ed from Hal Sperlich, a former president of Chrysler from 1984-88 and a member of the Automotive Hall of Fame, entitled “Romney was Right on Detroit Bankruptcy.” This article illustrates the point.

    The entirety of Mr. Sperlich’s piece is below, but highlighted below are a few critical points we have made here on this site previously:

    1. Obama’s assertion he saved the US auto industry while Governor Romney would have let it go under is simply not true.

    2. Obama’s plan mirrored Mitt’s plan, with a couple key differences:

    * Obama used $80 billion in taxpayer cash, about $25 billion is still at risk.

    * Mitt’s “far superior” plan would have only guaranteed automaker obligations, not offered cash.

    * Mitt’s plan would have built competitiveness, the key to long term success.

    3. Mitt was not proposing abandoning the auto industry, that’s only an Obama soundbite. Mitt’s plan would have been less expensive and more successful.

    Here’s the entire piece.

    No, Mitt didn’t want to abandon the US auto industry. He wanted to save it, and his plan was better and cheaper:

    Romney was right on Detroit bankruptcy
    By Hal Sperlich

    President Barack Obama alleges that he saved the U.S. auto industry, whereas Gov. Mitt Romney would have let the U.S. automakers go under.

    Not true.

    In an op-ed piece in the New York Times dated Nov. 18, 2008, Romney proposed a plan to enable GM and Chrysler to survive as strong competitors through a managed bankruptcy.

    Four months later, the Obama administration proposed a similar managed bankruptcy, but with two very important differences.

    The Obama administration proposed a very costly bailout of the two companies with $80 billion of taxpayer cash, a process started by President George W. Bush with $17 billion of TARP money. Close to $25 billion of those taxpayer funds remain uncollected, still tarnishing the GM brand with the label “Government Motors.”

    The Romney plan was far superior.

    First, it proposed using government guaranteed private financing, similar to what we did with Chrysler back in 1980, not massive quantities of precious taxpayer cash, as was done by the Obama administration. Second, as a man who has led many business and public sector turnarounds, Romney recognized that the auto companies not only had to survive the crisis, but they had to build the strength to allow them to be stronger competitors in the years to follow.

    Let me digress for a moment to make a point. I was privileged to be in a leadership role during the Lee Iacocca led Chrysler turnaround that began in 1980. In fairly short order, we converted the world’s least competitive auto company into one of the most competitive. America’s first fuel-efficient front wheel drive cars, along with innovations like the first mini-vans, replaced the obsolete. Market share increased 50 percent by 1988 and, with dramatically improved costs, great labor management cooperation, major quality improvements and shared sacrifice from everyone, Chrysler became competitive and highly profitable. We baked a bigger pie so that all could share, including customers, shareholders and the folks who built the products.

    That’s what competiveness does.

    Just about every businessman will tell you it begins with competitiveness. If you do it better than the guy down the street, you will generate growth and jobs. If we do it better than the people in the next country, we will have more jobs here in America. It’s that simple. Competitiveness is the foundation for the prosperity we seek.

    Romney understands this. He would not have abandoned GM, Chrysler and all their employees. In the end, either the Obama or the Romney approach would have provided the companies the support necessary to move forward.

    But the Romney plan would have spared the taxpayer the billions invested by the Obama administration in the bailouts. Further, the more aggressive approach to new levels of efficiency proposed by Romney would have left the companies significantly more competitive.

    As a result, the companies would have been better positioned to provide the long-term job security for their employees that only true competitiveness can guarantee, and to grow, adding thousands of new high paying American jobs.

    In his November 2008 op-ed, Romney said, “Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.”

    In a way, I believe the same can be said of America at this point.

    We don’t need to continue borrowing money we may never be able to repay.

    America needs a turnaround.

    America needs to become more competitive.

    Romney understands this at a deep level and his policies are designed to enable a more robust and competitive America.

    That’s what experienced leadership is all about.

    UPDATE: An astute reader also caught the following post, also in the Detroit News’ op ed section: Delphi debacle spoils Obama bailout boast. One key quote:

    When President Barack Obama uses the first of three debates Wednesday to tout his bailout of Detroit’s auto industry, as he surely will, Republican challenger Mitt Romney should be ready with a single number:

    22,000.

    That’s how many salaried retirees of the old Delphi Corp. saw their pension fund seized by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. at the behest, documents suggest, of an Obama Treasury Department that ensured no such thing happened to the Troy-based auto supplier’s unionized workers and retirees.

    Even worse, as the president and his proxies hail the auto bailouts as a cornerstone of an otherwise dismal economic record, they’re slow-walking congressional demands to explain fully why taxpayer dollars were used to favor the pensions of Delphi’s union employees over their salaried counterparts — many of them located in the politically critical battleground state of Ohio.

    Barack Obama, CEO of Bankruptcy, LLC

    Photo & Trailer Sign: Andrew Geurink & Family

    Hat Tip to Steve Samuelian for sending over this image for MRC

    This trailer sign is located near Holland, Michigan (western part of the state) and is courtesy of OttawaCountyPatriots.com


    American Values: “In God We Trust” — “Liberty” — “E Pluribus Unum”

    Twitter Follow: @VicLundquist – Dedicated to all members of The United States military and their families

    Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are Coming to Michigan!

    On the back of some great polling news in Michigan showing the Romney-Ryan ticket surging to the lead, Mitt and Paul Ryan are holding a homecoming rally in Oakland County in Michigan. Oakland County is perhaps the most important county in the country and a win in Mitt’s home county will likely lead to a win in the state of Michigan which will make President’s Obama’s path to victory virtually impossible.

    Do everything you can to promote this rally and try to make it to the last big rally before the Republican National Convention where Mitt will officially become the nominee!

    To RSVP or for more information, click here.

    You’re Invited to a Victory Rally with

    Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan

    and the Republican Team!

    Friday, August 24th, 2012

    Doors Open 9:30 AM | Event Begins 11:30 AM

    Long Family Farm, Orchard & Cider Mill

    1540 East Commerce Road

    Commerce, Michigan 48334

    THE RYAN FACTOR: Poll Shows Romney Up on Obama In Michigan After Selecting Paul Ryan as VP

    The Paul Ryan Bump?

    The most recent polling information from Michigan shows Romney leading by nearly four points over Obama. Michigan, a state that traditionally votes democratic in Presidential elections, is Mitt Romney’s home state.

    The polling results seem to suggest that Romney has gained support in the state since the announcement of Paul Ryan as his running mate. Ryan is from neighboring Wisconsin, which may have been a factor in the uptick in Michigan support.

    “Romney has identified a clear game changer if his strategy is to divide the Midwest and blow a bugle in President Obama’s Midwestern Strategy”, states Eric Foster, chief pollster and President of Foster McCollum White & Associates. “Romney may be attempting to isolate Illinois and Pennsylvania by having Michigan and Wisconsin in play. That also limited Obama’s opportunity to strengthen resource and advertising in Ohio and Indiana if Michigan and Wisconsin are competitive”.

    In spite of national criticism of the Ryan selection and budget plan, our findings suggest that Michigan voters are viewing both as positives for Romney. 36.11% of Michigan voters are more likely to vote for Romney because of the Paul Ryan selection while only 27.90% are less likely to vote for Romney. That is a positive statistical advantage for Romney of 8.21 points or 29.42%.

    The latest polling from Wisconsin also shows Romney edging out Obama in what is supposed to be Obama-safe territory. What do you think — is this a trend we’ll start seeing across the upper mid-west? Fingers crossed.

    SWING STATE POLL: Romney Closes Gap in Michigan, Increases Lead Among Independent Voters

    Romney edges out Obama in MI

    According to The Detroit News, Romney Leads by 1 point in the latest Michigan poll (a statistical tie). The slight lead comes largely from a surge of support among independents, who favor Romney over Obama by a whopping 10 percentage points:

    A survey by Mitchell Research & Communications showed the race is a statistical dead heat between President Barack Obama and presumptive Republican challenger Mitt Romney, with Romney leading, 45 percent to Obama’s 44 percent.

    The Mitchell poll showed a possible cause for concern for Obama. Romney expanded his lead among independent voters, who are considered a key voting bloc.

    In the poll, they preferred Romney by a 44 percent to 34 percent margin. Last month, they liked Romney, 43 percent to 38 percent.

    Team Obama is counting on Michigan, among other solidly blue states, to give them an electoral advantage come November. But at this rate, it looks like Michigan may be going red for the first time — in a presidential race — since the Reagan years.

    Page 1 of 7123456Last »