It might be interesting if we start a thread now, predicting how the election will turn out. Then after the election, we can look back at it.
I don't have any real insight myself, but I expect Obama to pick up maybe 55% of the popular vote, states divided much the same way as they were in the last election.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Obama wins, thanks to Paul Ryan.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Romney wins, but if he looses it will be by just a few percentage points because the Paulites will stay home or vote a different party.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
lem, I just want you to know that I find your continued dogged belief in the relevance of Ron Paul to be disarmingly charming.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
55-45 would be a really high margin for the popular vote. There's no way Obama beats his '08 margin. Democrat turnout is just not going to reach those levels.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Is there a point of engaging in amateur prediction when there are highly-competentprofessionals performing the same function*?
But I guess maybe it's just for fun. In that case, my guess is that Obama edges Romney by about 1.5% in the popular vote and maybe 284-254 in the Electoral College. That said, I do have significant uncertainty about that forecast, and wouldn't be very surprised by anything from a 40 EV/2% popular vote win for Romney to a 90 EV/4% popular vote win for Obama.
*Not that those highly-competent professionals' models actually agree with each other...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
1. Something dramatic has to happen in favor of the Republican party in order for Romney to win. If things stay more or less how they've been for the whole election season so far, the only real question is whether or not Obama will again breach the 300 mark in Electoral Vote Distribution; it currently holds at 298 in the current reliable models.
2. Ryan has not yet shown himself to be very relevant to point no. (1). Romney has never been modeled as a likely winner and has trailed Obama from the onset of polling aggregate tabulations. Obama is experiencing a (further) upswing over Romney right now but it can't be shown conclusively to be about Ryan and is realistically more likely a result of the Akin brouhaha bolstering the Democratic line that Republicans are waging a "war on women."
3. The Paulites are mostly irrelevant again; they're essentially a republican bloc as usual and it will be funny to watch them vote for a person who instituted a universal health coverage as governor. (With Reservations™ of course)
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
It's going to be close, and there's a lot of campaign season left. Based on how the race stands right now - or rather, as it stood shortly before the start of the Republican National Convention, since that's basically where current polling gets us - I'd guess that Obama wins the popular vote a slim margin (say 50-48.5), and the electoral college by a less slim margin, earning roughly 290 electoral votes overall.
But again, we're just now entering the biggest phase of the campaign. A final projection will depend on the severity and longevity of convention bounces, debate performances, and of course any October Surprise(s) that may occur.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: 55-45 would be a really high margin for the popular vote. There's no way Obama beats his '08 margin. Democrat turnout is just not going to reach those levels.
And early-signs are independents are significantly more likely to vote GOP than they were in 2008. Plus third party candidates will likely capture 1-2% of the vote, so reaching 55% would mean a margin of victory of ~12%, which would be really surprising to me. For reference, in 2008, Obama scored 53% of the vote and had a 7.5% margin of victory.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Yeah, 55% was an overestimate.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: 1. Something dramatic has to happen in favor of the Republican party in order for Romney to win. If things stay more or less how they've been for the whole election season so far, the only real question is whether or not Obama will again breach the 300 mark in Electoral Vote Distribution; it currently holds at 298 in the current reliable models.
Maybe (and of course it depends on your definition of 'dramatic'), but I'm skeptical. There are about 10% truly undecided voters who won't make up their minds until next month. I think it would take something much less dramatic than, say, the 2008 financial meltdown for them to break 2:1 for Romney. And then there's ground game considerations and all that that may not be baked into our current view of the election. I would be unsurprised by a narrow Romney victory, even with the current events trajectory (but, of course, that could just be reflecting my partisan loyalties).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It might make me look like one of those paranoid types but the only thing that isn't essentially wrapped up for me that I want to pay attention to is: electronic voting machines! We have some evidence now of their suspicious hinkiness and the 'redshift' phenomenon deserves special attention it won't get by election officials and, oh, probably it won't amount to much, but it's skeevy as all hell anyway.
Past that: ~dramatic~ doesn't have to mean the 2008 meltdown. You just need a completely (so far) not precedented stretch of time where the GOP's position is not being toxified by its own inherent elements (again, see Akin as a recent example) and the Democrats or Obama make a huge misstep that gives them some way to close ground.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think the popular vote is going to be close, but I think the electoral vote is going to clearly favor President Obama, especially with the "Let's cut Medicare" position losing them Florida and confirming that they won't take Pennsylvania.
I have a strong suspicion that the business wing of the Republican party (and Mitt Romney himself) have already realized that they are not going to win this election and have set their goals on other things.
edit: I think, barring any major upheavals, that Mitt Romney only has a chance if the voter suppression tactics the GOP are deploying are much more successful than expected. I do think that they will play a deciding factor in securing them more house seats though and we'll see a concerted legal challenge.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think that the Democrats are going to barely hold onto a majority in the Senate, but are going to lose ground in the House.
I also expect that there will be at best a partial solution to the "fiscal cliff" and we don't quite reach a recession, but growth is going slow to a crawl for the first half of 2013.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Past that: ~dramatic~ doesn't have to mean the 2008 meltdown. You just need a completely (so far) not precedented stretch of time where the GOP's position is not being toxified by its own inherent elements (again, see Akin as a recent example) and the Democrats or Obama make a huge misstep that gives them some way to close ground.
See, I think all it would take would be for Aug and Sept to see significantly below expectation job growth, particularly negative job growth. Or for Romney to clearly win the debates. Or for there to be bad weather around the Great Lakes on election day. The current Pollster national polling average difference is less than a percentage point (even if you exclude obviously biased pollsters like Rasmussen); I would say this election is closer than either 2000 or 2004.
That said, Squicky's right; Obama's currently outperforming his national numbers in swing states, which gives him a slight Electoral College edge. But even so, current polling averages in Wisconsin, Nevada, Michigan, Colorado, Virginia, Ohio, Iowa, Florida, and North Carolina (122 EVs) are all within 3%; a nation-wide shift of just a couple percent would probably be enough for Romney to win both the popular vote and the Electoral College.
For reference, in 2008 there was a 5% swing toward Obama in the polls from Aug-Nov (not counting the Palin/RNC bump, which caused McCain's numbers to spike but then swiftly dissipated). 2000 and 2008 saw more modest polling shifts of about 3% away from the incumbent party. Given recent history, I would find a national swing of 2-3% unsurprising, and if that swing went toward Romney it would probably mean a narrow win for the GOP.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: 1. Something dramatic has to happen in favor of the Republican party in order for Romney to win. If things stay more or less how they've been for the whole election season so far, the only real question is whether or not Obama will again breach the 300 mark in Electoral Vote Distribution; it currently holds at 298 in the current reliable models.
Maybe (and of course it depends on your definition of 'dramatic'), but I'm skeptical. There are about 10% truly undecided voters who won't make up their minds until next month. I think it would take something much less dramatic than, say, the 2008 financial meltdown for them to break 2:1 for Romney. And then there's ground game considerations and all that that may not be baked into our current view of the election. I would be unsurprised by a narrow Romney victory, even with the current events trajectory (but, of course, that could just be reflecting my partisan loyalties).
The majority of truly undecided voters will make up their minds in October during the debates. I've only read a few op-eds that have put a ton of emphasis on the debates this far out, but I think they'll decide the election. I also think Obama will absolutely crush Romney in the debates.
He'll crush him because Romney has either no ideas or terrible ideas. He was running the anything-but-Obama campaign until a couple weeks ago, and now he's running a campaign against the fundamentals of arithmetic if he thinks the numbers on his plans actually add up. Obama will carve him up on stuff like that.
I think he'll also win because Obama is just plain likeable. He has the folksy charisma that's just killer in a presidential election. And Romney is an unlikeable, smug, superior robot, who comes across as rather condescending. Their favorability and likeability ratings are an ocean apart.
By no means does Obama have it in the bag, but if this thing is a stalemate for another month and it comes down to the debates, I think Obama takes it.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I think that the Democrats are going to barely hold onto a majority in the Senate, but are going to lose ground in the House.
I also expect that there will be at best a partial solution to the "fiscal cliff" and we don't quite reach a recession, but growth is going slow to a crawl for the first half of 2013.
I think Democrats hang on to the Senate, and maybe lose a seat or two. They have a real chance at picking up at least three seats from the GOP; Indiana (which is laughably in play after Luger lost to a TP candidate and there's also a Libertarian polling at 5% to draw votes away), Maine and Massachusetts. They also have a real chance of hanging on to seats once considered out of reach, like Missouri. Especially of Obama wins, I think the downticket balloting saves the Senate.
And I wouldn't be so sure on the House. Remember the TP wave of 2010 ushered a lot of conservatives into blue and light blue districts. That'll correct over the next two elections. I think if Obama wins, they probably pick up a few seats, but either way it doesn't much matter.
I think after the election, if Obama wins, he finally plays hardball. He has the GOP over a barrel for the first real time. If he says to let the tax cuts for the wealthy expire and the GOP balks, I think he lets it go, lets them expire, and then comes back in January and says, how about now? Every time he floats a bill in the House, he can portray the GOP as voting against all manner of things, and their already dismal poll numbers drop even more. But it all depends on how steely his spine is. I think after being burned for so long, he's probably not in a negotiating mood anymore.
I know everyone says that we're in for four more years of gridlock, but I think the second theoretical term for Obama would be different. He's played defense for the last two years by and large, and I think a lot of that was trying to protect reelection. With nothing left to lose, I think he goes on the warpath to try and get some of his plans actually passed in Congress. If he can get a jobs bill and tax reform through, I think the economy bounces back. The GOP plan to keep the economy on idle until a Republican finally wins has to fail eventually. I hope.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I think that the Democrats are going to barely hold onto a majority in the Senate, but are going to lose ground in the House.
I also expect that there will be at best a partial solution to the "fiscal cliff" and we don't quite reach a recession, but growth is going slow to a crawl for the first half of 2013.
Agree (depending on how you count Angus King), disagree (even with redistricting, I think Dems pick up a handful of seats) and partially agree (I think any solution, partial or otherwise, to the 'fiscal cliff' is quite unlikely, and think the economy will contract in the first half of 2013).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:He'll crush him because Romney has either no ideas or terrible ideas.
This is not really much of a hindrance at all in the format of today's debates. both sides have pretty much figured out that the only important thing to do is put on appearances and give out platitudes, answering the question poised to you as superficially as possible while working ultimately only on hitting as many talking-point soundbites and attack points as possible and composing yourself in a way as to avoid even deliberate mistranslation as often as possible.
You don't have to have ideas. You just have to be coached to provide well-spoken platitudes.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's not how it worked when he debated McCain in 2008, especially not during the town hall when they directly went after each other with direct questions and answers.
The format this year looks identical. They'll be able to mix it up.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I've personally haven't ever noticed 538 ever missing a prediction and right now its 70% chance Obama wins.
What I find interesting is the analysis people are putting out is that Texas will within a decade or so become solidly blue thanks to demographics.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think that's overrated...but who knows. Just in the last couple elections we've seen a few states dramatically change course in their political alignment. Texas has a large and growing youth and Latino population. They need to actually vote to matter though.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
On the contrary, 538 misses predictions all the time - this far out from the election. Nate Silver himself would emphatically argue that basing your expectations on his system's projections two months before the election is folly. He's a statistician, which means he understands that the exact electoral projection at any given moment isn't nearly so important as the probabilities his system outputs. As election day draws nearer, polling density will increase (reducing the margin of error for each projection). In addition, the probabilities associated with each individual state projection will become more extreme, as it's significantly more difficult to overcome a 2-point deficit with one week left to campaign than with a full two months. But right now, it's critical to consider the limitations of the statistical methods being employed rather than accept any projection prima facie.
Sam's projection of 298 electoral votes for Obama from "reliable models" (which I'm assuming means 538, since that's pretty much the exact value it currently projects) is the "most likely" outcome given current polling. But Sam's post, rather dangerously, frames the figure almost as if it represents a floor for Obama, when it instead represents a mean. It is absolutely untrue that the "the only real question is whether or not Obama will again breach the 300 mark in Electoral Vote Distribution." 538's current projection, in fact, indicates that there's a roughly 50% probability that Obama will win FEWER than 298 electoral votes.
This is going to be a very close election, and Democrats who kid themselves into thinking they've already won it unless the Republicans do "something dramatic" will quite likely come to rue their overconfidence in November.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I'm not a democrat, so my confidence means nothing as I do not vote in American elections.
Not sure what predictions you've said Nate Silver has missed, but as far as I am aware he's accurately predicting the outcome of every Presidential election since 2000, the Wisconsin recall, and roughly the result of each senate race.
Point is registered Democrat voters even if they look online and think Obama's going to win aren't going to be less likely to vote for him on some basis of complacency. Arguably they should be MORE likely because now they're joining onto the bandwagon of the winning race.
And besides all that there's still the issue of the Republicans being dangerous to the country with their rhetoric that they'll scare enough Dems' into voting anyways to "just to make sure".
Now 308, the Canadian version with a dude who isn't actually a statistician, now *thats* a site I know that never has an accurate prediction.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:It is absolutely untrue that the "the only real question is whether or not Obama will again breach the 300 mark in Electoral Vote Distribution."
Ahem. The thread asked for our own take on the issue, and I have provided my opinion truthfully. that's pretty much my only question left so far, barring some noteworthy shakeup.
You'll note I'm not saying that (1) this is the only question people are allowed to have, or that (2) I trust in a guaranteed outcome.
I only trust the election outcome enough to have bet on it.
Again.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
The one thing that really counts against Obama in this election is fundraising. Romney is bringing in a lot. Which, to me, is pretty weird. It's not like Obama is anti-business or anything.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Oh, also
quote:Sam's projection of 298 electoral votes for Obama from "reliable models" (which I'm assuming means 538, since that's pretty much the exact value it currently projects)
No, just circumstantial .. and not something I knew. But definitely in line with my 538 fanboyishness.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: The one thing that really counts against Obama in this election is fundraising. Romney is bringing in a lot. Which, to me, is pretty weird. It's not like Obama is anti-business or anything.
He isn't, but Romney is openly more pro-big business. It's why we know exactly what tax cuts he will implement and increased defense spending he will shoot for, but nothing regarding how he will actually pay for it.*
*Many analysts assume it's mostly going to come out of the only discretionary spending he will have control of, government programs that help the non-wealthy.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The majority of truly undecided voters will make up their minds in October during the debates. I've only read a few op-eds that have put a ton of emphasis on the debates this far out, but I think they'll decide the election. I also think Obama will absolutely crush Romney in the debates.
...
I think he'll also win because Obama is just plain likeable. He has the folksy charisma that's just killer in a presidential election. And Romney is an unlikeable, smug, superior robot, who comes across as rather condescending. Their favorability and likeability ratings are an ocean apart.
By no means does Obama have it in the bag, but if this thing is a stalemate for another month and it comes down to the debates, I think Obama takes it.
Maybe Romney will off-handedly challenge Obama to a $10K wager during one of the debates. THAT would be fun to see.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I do think it'll be pretty interesting to see what Romney does in the debates. I think you already know exactly what sort of performance you'll get out of Obama.
Romney was normally calm and cool during the GOP debates, but toward the end when he was seriously challenged and came out of his box, things got a lot more interesting, and that's when you saw the bet comment. Even if they don't break away from the joint press conference format of the last 20 years, and I think they will, Obama will still poke Romney enough to get him to go off message. History suggests Romney won't be able to stop himself from saying something bizarre and off the cuff.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:It is absolutely untrue that the "the only real question is whether or not Obama will again breach the 300 mark in Electoral Vote Distribution."
Ahem. The thread asked for our own take on the issue, and I have provided my opinion truthfully. that's pretty much my only question left so far, barring some noteworthy shakeup.
You'll note I'm not saying that (1) this is the only question people are allowed to have, or that (2) I trust in a guaranteed outcome.
I only trust the election outcome enough to have bet on it.
Again.
Fair enough - I shouldn't have said it was "untrue." Just that it's not actually supported by the models you cited.
quote: Not sure what predictions you've said Nate Silver has missed, but as far as I am aware he's accurately predicting the outcome of every Presidential election since 2000, the Wisconsin recall, and roughly the result of each senate race.
You're missing the point. Nate Silver is incredibly accurate in his projections made shortly before Election Day. You're effectively comparing his November 3, 2008 projection to the actual November 4, 2008 results. Right now, however, his projections for the 2012 election are based on polling data two months prior to Election Day, and Silver himself has stated on numerous occasions that things could swing dramatically either way in the time remaining. Citing the model's current projection of 70% likelihood of an Obama victory as if it's Silver's final projection is severely misunderstanding how projection models actually work.
I'm a huge fan of 538 as well. But I'm a fan because Silver's a ridiculously bright statistician who understands better than perhaps anyone out there that his model is only as good as the numbers it receives, and that polling only provides information on the state of the race up to the moment the poll is taken.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Time for a little flight of quantitative analysis. I took the state-by-state Obama-McCain margins and compared them to the current adjusted polling averages* from 538.
On average, Romney's outperforming McCain by about 6 points, which is consistent with national level polling which shows him down about 1.5 points to Obama (McCain lost the popular vote by 7.5). I thought it would be interesting to see in which states Romney's seeing abnormally large or small 'swings' in his numbers. As a data note, about ten highly partisan states didn't have adjusted polling averages, so I've left them out of the analysis.
Abnormally small: Alabama (-5.7), South Carolina (-5.58), Tennessee (-5.37), Oklahoma (-0.59), South Dakota (-0.11), Nebraska (1.07), Arizona (1.98), North Carolina (2.23).
Analysis: a lot of the deviation is exactly what you would expect; Romney/Ryan get bumps in 'home' states like Utah, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, and Michigan, and underperform swing expectations in Arizona where McCain had a home-state advantage last election. More broadly, current polling averages have Romney generally underperforming generic expectations in the South and Midwest (the Indiana number may be an outlier) and overperforming in the North and Mountain West.
In general, there's a weak but noticeable correlation between a state's median income and the degree to which Romney is outperforming generic expectations: he's doing better than expected in richer (bluer) states and worse than expected in poorer (redder) states, with an increase of $10,000 in median income correlating with about a 2-point increase over expectation for Romney.
*I could have used the NowCast numbers or the Projected Vote Share, but I wanted to be as close to the data as possible. Maybe I'll redo the analysis with the those later.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I've personally haven't ever noticed 538 ever missing a prediction and right now its 70% chance Obama wins.
What I find interesting is the analysis people are putting out is that Texas will within a decade or so become solidly blue thanks to demographics.
I've been surprised just to see that Texas has been booted out of RCP's "solid" category on the electoral maps this year. Likely is still a strong predictor for RCP, but still- that never happened in the last few elections.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
The debates will be interesting. Up until now neither side has really given any specifics on how they are going to govern differently. Obama is just going after Romney's Bain years and tax returns, and Romney is going after Obama on Medicare, the ACA, and welfare. Nobody has come out and said, "Here is exactly what I am going to do." I think it is too soon to say who will do better in the debates because we don't know what kind of debates we are going to get. Are we going to have debates based on substance and plans to fix the mess we are in, or are we going to have a debate that consists of nothing but pointing fingers and blaming each other?
I do believe though that the VP debate will be won by Paul Ryan, unless Obama pulls a fast one next week and dumps Biden for Clinton. Honestly, if Obama did that I'd bet my life savings he wins the election by a pretty large margin.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Heh. Obama has governed for 4 years. The onus is on Romney to suggest how he might govern differently- he has not done so. This is the essence of the incumbent advantage: if the incumbent has acted in keeping (to some degree) with his original agenda, then people are sure of what they're getting. Obama doesn't *have* to hammer policy when his entire first term has been a demonstration of policy. Romney's problem, and the incumbent's advantage, is in that Obama has made most of the right key decisions, and Romney knows it. He can lie and obfuscate and hem and haw to some extent, but he can't change that. He can't say he'd have done things differently, when the way things have been done actually satisfies a good number of people. Not everyone, not all the time, but enough to make it clear that a vote for Obama is less of a danger or an unknown than 4 years ago. That's why Romney shoots himself and his party in the foot (as they all do) over medicare and Obamacare. Most people like these programs, and even when they say they don't like them, they actually like what's in them. How do you fight against that? How do you rail against improvement? You can't say it isn't good *enough*, because that indicates that it's good. And good is kind of the enemy of Mitt Romney right now.
I am flabbergasted at the notion that Obama has not been clear on his plans. He has followed an agenda he laid out 4 years ago- one that is far from being complete. You make note of it right there in your next sentence: Romney is going after all the policy that Obama has pursued in 4 years. What could be more clear? What do you think he should do? Lay out a whole new agenda that contradicts the original one? The goals are all the same.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Romney just has to keep lying and as long as Fox News repeats it as truth that's enough for a lot of people.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I do believe though that the VP debate will be won by Paul Ryan,
Liar v. Firebrand is not so clear cut.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Oh and if I need to say it a little bit harder. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. They are sold out liars.
I'm shocked that Ryan's speech is causing this much of a firestorm. I figured it'd get a ho-hum slap on the wrist at worst. It remains to be seen how it will actually affect him though.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Time for a little flight of quantitative analysis. I took the state-by-state Obama-McCain margins and compared them to the current adjusted polling averages* from 538.
On average, Romney's outperforming McCain by about 6 points, which is consistent with national level polling which shows him down about 1.5 points to Obama (McCain lost the popular vote by 7.5). I thought it would be interesting to see in which states Romney's seeing abnormally large or small 'swings' in his numbers. As a data note, about ten highly partisan states didn't have adjusted polling averages, so I've left them out of the analysis.
Abnormally small: Alabama (-5.7), South Carolina (-5.58), Tennessee (-5.37), Oklahoma (-0.59), South Dakota (-0.11), Nebraska (1.07), Arizona (1.98), North Carolina (2.23).
Analysis: a lot of the deviation is exactly what you would expect; Romney/Ryan get bumps in 'home' states like Utah, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, and Michigan, and underperform swing expectations in Arizona where McCain had a home-state advantage last election. More broadly, current polling averages have Romney generally underperforming generic expectations in the South and Midwest (the Indiana number may be an outlier) and overperforming in the North and Mountain West.
In general, there's a weak but noticeable correlation between a state's median income and the degree to which Romney is outperforming generic expectations: he's doing better than expected in richer (bluer) states and worse than expected in poorer (redder) states, with an increase of $10,000 in median income correlating with about a 2-point increase over expectation for Romney.
*I could have used the NowCast numbers or the Projected Vote Share, but I wanted to be as close to the data as possible. Maybe I'll redo the analysis with the those later.
Turns out that Simon Jackson did the same thing as me yesterday, and packaged it in a nice graphic to boot. I imagine the discrepancies in our numbers are due to the differences in the 538 adjusted poll average vs. whatever Jackson is using. The graphic makes very clear that Romney's running well ahead of McCain, that if the election were held today he would likely lose, but that there are lots of EVs that could move into Romney's column if we see a national shift on the order of 2 pts.
<edit>To make 'lots of EVs' more quantitative, if all states experienced a uniform 2pt swing toward Romney (using Jackson's numbers) he wins 324-214. If Obama sees a uniform 2pt swing his direction, he wins 350-188. In each of the last three Presidential elections (the only elections I could easily find reliable polling data for), the swing from Labor Day to election day was between three and seven points, discounting (as best I can) the convention bumps.</edit>
[ August 31, 2012, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Obama wins, thanks to Paul Ryan.
Agreed. I was sitting on the fence until I read up on Paul Ryan. I feel like republican candidates have to suck up to the radical conservatives much more than the democrat candidates have to suck up to the radical liberals.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I wish Obama would even TRY to suck up to radical liberals.
We're not really feeling the love, especially not compared to the love sonnets Romney is writing for his base.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
No kidding. We single-payer, tax and spend liberals are getting shafted by this guy. He's too moderate by half.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I have mentioned this in another thread, but it seems especially relevant here. A Network commentator recently compared this election to the one in 1980, when Governor Ronald Reagan ran against President Jimmy Carter (who like Obama presided over a dismal economy, and was running for a second term). Coming out of the Republican National Convention, Reagan trailed Carter by double digits in the polls. But he wound up winning the election by a large margin.
Some credit this to Reagan's performance in the debates. Romney most likely will best Obama in the debates because he is smarter and more experienced as a successful businessman (Obama has never so much as managed a lemonade stand), and Obama will not be able to use a teleprompter in a live debate. Romney may not have the oratorical skills of Reagan, who was an actor, but he is highly articulate and experienced selling his programs in corporate boardrooms. Plus Romney looks and sounds so presidential. As it has been pointed out by many commentators, if you called up central casting for a character to play the role of the president, Romney would be the first choice.
Obama does not enjoy any double-digit lead in the polls. Many polls have them even. A few even give the edge to Romney. If things continue to happen the way they did in 1980, then Romney will win in a landslide, and the coattails will certainly deliver control of the Senate to the Republicans.
Many people are still learning about Romney. As most of them are finally learning for themselves what kind of person he is and what kind of experience he has had, they see the contrast with the ridiculous misrepresentations about him made by the Obama campaign, and early polls indicate that the large majority of Independents are breaking to Romney.
Then of course there are all the people who voted for Obama in 2008, who are now very disillusioned.
Everyone in America knows our primary problems as a nation are the economy and jobs--and Romney, with his sterling business background saving companies and creating thousands of jobs, and with his successful executive experience as governor of Massachusetts, is the one with the obvious qualifications to deal with those problems for the nation.
The debates will be crucial, of course. But Romney has all the advantages. As I already mentioned, Obama will not be able to use a teleprompter.
[ September 01, 2012, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I predict now that Ron will not be speaking at all about one of Romney's signature accomplishments as governor. Just a guess. I predict he'll behave as though the question were never raised, continuing a long tradition of pretending inconvenient questions simply weren't asked.
Incidentally, you had better hope Romney doesn't bring his boardroom skills to the debate, Ron. He did more of that early in the primaries, when he had, what was it, forty or fifty economic plans he was willing to talk about? Not unlike a corporate figure.
Contrast that with now when he is able to pander to the party that supposedly mistrusts government by saying 'I'll go into that later'.
Oh-and we all know what 'looks presidential' means to you, Ron.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Colin Powell looks presidential. Maybe it's that military bearing he has, that Obama could never master.
Romney even looks a little like Reagan. He's got the square, masculine jaw of a Western hero, the high forehead of intelligence, the tufts of white at his temples that bespeak wisdom to most of us raised in an English culture.
Hey, you remember the Greek columns Obama had at his nomination convention? Now for this convention he is having a statue of himself made. Never mind Mount Rushmore, this dude thinks he is destined for Mount Olympus.
I hope at some point Romney brings this up in a debate, and says, "No, Barack Obama, you are not a god. And I promise you, you are not going to be president for much longer."
[ September 01, 2012, 08:05 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If that's the material you're bringing, Ron, I think you'd do better leaving Clint Eastwood to handle your jokes.
Posted by Marek (Member # 5404) on :
Is it embarrassing because it looks nothing like him? or makes him look like he is morbidly obese? or because it is just not pleasing to look at?
I mean it can't be embarrassing as a matter of ego or anything, after all, I doubt sitting president (with no background in design) is the head of the decorating committee for the party's prom. Still for aesthetic reasons, who ever made it should probably feel some slight embarrassment
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Colin Powel also endorsed Barack Obama, are you going to argue with a General Ron?
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
Probably. Anyone taking odds?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't know if Ron hates America enough to argue with a general.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Hey, you remember the Greek columns Obama had at his nomination convention? Now for this convention he is having a statue of himself made. Never mind Mount Rushmore, this dude thinks he is destined for Mount Olympus.
I hope at some point Romney brings this up in a debate, and says, "No, Barack Obama, you are not a god. And I promise you, you are not going to be president for much longer."
I think what is scary is that by now it is difficult to figure where your satire line begins.
Or maybe that you don't understand what my post means.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
This has a pretty major bearing on the election outcome, so I figured I'd post it here rather than trying to track down another thread. I should have just started a big election thread like I've done the past few years to eliminate the confusion, but oh well.
Now that these laws are finally coming into contact, they're being knocked down all over the place. Ohio's was particularly important given the state's importance to the election. Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Virginia all still have a law on the books. SC's is being reviewed soon by a three judge panel, and PA's, which was upheld by a state court, is being appealed to the federal court system as we speak.
I'd read that Obama won't contest the VA law, but that doesn't mean a voting rights organization won't.
This has been kind of an under the radar story for the last few months. Unless you've been watching Stewart's rants on TDS or reading a select group of news sites, you probably didn't even realize there was a concerted, organized voter suppression effort going on around the country designed to deny likely Obama supporters the ability to vote in order to hand the election to Romney. A major GOP official in PA said as much a few weeks ago.
I wonder, now that the courts have spoken, if this is an issue Obama can go on the offense with. I'd say he was considering it off limits since he hasn't talked about it at all, but the GOP has even talked about it whilst cartoonishly mischaracterizing Obama's position on it. So it's fair game, and it would energize just the sort of people he needs to energize for him.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I've been following the news on these new laws, but not in a committed way-rather for instance whenever they come up on NPR's site. I didn't quite realize these laws had been dealt such blows lately because of that-I remember reading about the upheld and being pretty upset.
To my mind there really aren't two ways to think about these laws in an honest, thorough way. One can honestly believe they're a good thing, but they cannot believe that if they've examined things and discovered, as everyone who does will, that evidence of fraudulent voting is minimal at best and where it exists isn't at the polls with a fake name or something.
Strangely, this is again against one of those conservative principles I remember hearing about when I was younger: don't make new laws if the current ones are doing the job, or would if enforced.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Four decisions came down four days in a row this week. All of them are being appealed to even higher courts, but it's unlikely that they'll get past appellate courts in time for the election, as SCOTUS is very unlikely to break from their recess to decide something like this.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That makes me really happy:) Partly because, I admit, I quite enjoy these days (I didn't used to, as some Hatrackers might remember) seeing the GOP get mud on their face. But also because I really thought a combination of election-year politics and an easy sell (if they have a good ID, they have nothing to complain about) would seal the deal.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Expect a lot of post-election "Chicago-style politics stole the election" if Obama wins.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Like that wouldn't happen anyway, heh. He's already a secret atheist communist Muslim who in his unholy lust for power seeks to weaken America to a 3rd World Nation (how that squares with his own lust for power, who the hell knows). Adding in dirty gangster politician just adds spice.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: This has a pretty major bearing on the election outcome, so I figured I'd post it here rather than trying to track down another thread. I should have just started a big election thread like I've done the past few years to eliminate the confusion, but oh well.
Now that these laws are finally coming into contact, they're being knocked down all over the place. Ohio's was particularly important given the state's importance to the election. Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Virginia all still have a law on the books. SC's is being reviewed soon by a three judge panel, and PA's, which was upheld by a state court, is being appealed to the federal court system as we speak.
I'd read that Obama won't contest the VA law, but that doesn't mean a voting rights organization won't.
This has been kind of an under the radar story for the last few months. Unless you've been watching Stewart's rants on TDS or reading a select group of news sites, you probably didn't even realize there was a concerted, organized voter suppression effort going on around the country designed to deny likely Obama supporters the ability to vote in order to hand the election to Romney. A major GOP official in PA said as much a few weeks ago.
I wonder, now that the courts have spoken, if this is an issue Obama can go on the offense with. I'd say he was considering it off limits since he hasn't talked about it at all, but the GOP has even talked about it whilst cartoonishly mischaracterizing Obama's position on it. So it's fair game, and it would energize just the sort of people he needs to energize for him.
This makes me pretty happy, and it was not something I anticipated. I do remember hearing the PA gop official just up and admit it, and it wasn't a one-off disgruntled or misinformed republican saying it, but I was pretty sure it was going to be ignored anyway.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Many people are still learning about Romney. As most of them are finally learning for themselves what kind of person he is and what kind of experience he has had, they see the contrast with the ridiculous misrepresentations about him made by the Obama campaign, and early polls indicate that the large majority of Independents are breaking to Romney.
Convention bounce hasn't even come IN yet and Romney's base 'likeability' among independents has only gone up to 45%. Any time you say that some measurement of something 'indicates' something to you it is reliably just you making up or buying something wholesale just because someone said it and it's something you want to believe.
Oh man, it looks like Obama is going to lose in a landslide, in the same universe in which Barack's grandmother said he was born in Kenya, the WMD yellowcake in Iraq was found, Snopes is left-wing, and Palin is the de-facto head of the republican party by now.
:/
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Like that wouldn't happen anyway, heh. He's already a secret atheist communist Muslim who in his unholy lust for power seeks to weaken America to a 3rd World Nation (how that squares with his own lust for power, who the hell knows). Adding in dirty gangster politician just adds spice.
A breath of gangster, if you will.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Many people are still learning about Romney.
How long does it take for people to get to know him? He's only been campaigning for, what, five and a half years now?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Depends. I'm still waiting for him to say something I can tell he actually believes in himself. Other than "leave my millions out of it" and "I told the dog I was sorry"....
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I believe he wants to win.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
It turns out there was a giant creepy sand sculpture of Mitt Romney, too. Looks like neither the RNC nor DNC are responsible in either case. It's Myrtle Beach's chamber of commerce that's to blame. I guess they like making disturbing sand sculptures of politicians.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I have mentioned this in another thread, but it seems especially relevant here. A Network commentator recently compared this election to the one in 1980, when Governor Ronald Reagan ran against President Jimmy Carter (who like Obama presided over a dismal economy, and was running for a second term). Coming out of the Republican National Convention, Reagan trailed Carter by double digits in the polls. But he wound up winning the election by a large margin.
Some credit this to Reagan's performance in the debates. Romney most likely will best Obama in the debates because he is smarter and more experienced as a successful businessman (Obama has never so much as managed a lemonade stand), and Obama will not be able to use a teleprompter in a live debate. Romney may not have the oratorical skills of Reagan, who was an actor, but he is highly articulate and experienced selling his programs in corporate boardrooms. Plus Romney looks and sounds so presidential. As it has been pointed out by many commentators, if you called up central casting for a character to play the role of the president, Romney would be the first choice.
Obama does not enjoy any double-digit lead in the polls. Many polls have them even. A few even give the edge to Romney. If things continue to happen the way they did in 1980, then Romney will win in a landslide, and the coattails will certainly deliver control of the Senate to the Republicans.
Many people are still learning about Romney. As most of them are finally learning for themselves what kind of person he is and what kind of experience he has had, they see the contrast with the ridiculous misrepresentations about him made by the Obama campaign, and early polls indicate that the large majority of Independents are breaking to Romney.
Then of course there are all the people who voted for Obama in 2008, who are now very disillusioned.
Everyone in America knows our primary problems as a nation are the economy and jobs--and Romney, with his sterling business background saving companies and creating thousands of jobs, and with his successful executive experience as governor of Massachusetts, is the one with the obvious qualifications to deal with those problems for the nation.
The debates will be crucial, of course. But Romney has all the advantages. As I already mentioned, Obama will not be able to use a teleprompter.
This is all a joke right?
Obama has been in debates before, if you think back really really hard, you might remember that in 2008 he wasn't the President yet, he had debates in the Primaries, and the General Election, and he's quite good at it. While he uses a teleprompter sometimes to a fault for prepared speeches, he has proven it's not a requirement.
Also - He hasn't ran so much as a Lemonade Stand? How about the United States for the last 4 years? Was I in some alternate reality where Obama was President, but in this reality he wasn't?
Being the CEO of Bain Capital gives Romney less experience for being executive than his being Governor does, in my opinion. Politics and Business are two completely separate jobs. You can't "Fire" people in Congress as the Commander-in-Chief. You can't just "Cut off services, to save money." You can't file for bankruptcy, as "restructure" as Bain Capital was good at. You can't do fancy paperwork to make debts or taxes go away.
It's just a completely separate system. Romney left Mass. with a 36% (I believe that's accurate without looking it up right this second.) approval rating. His one lasting impression that actually does seem to be doing pretty well is the one thing he won't talk about "RomneyCare." And the fact that a Democrat succeeded him for the first time in 4 (or 5) Governors in Mass.
Romney is the master at going off script, believing he is better than his advisers, and throwing out comments that he thinks will resonate with his current audience. If he does that at the debates, he will sink his campaign.
If you'd like to talk about "Winning" debates, I'd venture to guess Paul Ryan will most likely handily "win" over Biden in the debates. But since the Romney campaign and Ryan himself have already been publicly downplaying Ryan's policy ideas and the fact that he won't be in charge, I doubt that will matter in the least.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You can't just "Cut off services, to save money."
Heh. Unless you're Scott Walker. (And I suppose the "save money" bit is optional, too.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
How's everyone thinking it's going right now?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I pretty much defer to Nate Silver. I check there at least 10 times a day, I swear.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Romney's Libya comments are a huge blunder and will dominate the news cycle for several days.
If he keeps this up, Obama will hold his several point lead into October, and then it's the debates, which I still think Obama will dominate, and then it's the election.
Romney's best chance for a win was always going to be to pray for a razor thin tie going into September, where he could use his massive funding advantage to carpet bomb the swing states with ads against Obama. But he's making that into a serious uphill climb.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Nate is trying to calculate an expected reduction in Obama's numbers as the convention bounce cools down, but there's so many things happening to Mitt that end up being comorbid to the DNC's reduction in the enthusiasm gap that it's going to be difficult to pick one factor from the other, and Obama is just hanging at around 80% odds to win in Silver's analysis, any post-convention drop being counteracted by Romney's campaign-related and party-related liabilities and missteps.
One telltale sign is that, as far as I can tell from the little data filtering through about voting based on demographic, Akin & Co reinforcing the "War on Women" narrative have really caused significant and lasting damage, especially among women voters.
Posted by Tovarich Volk (Member # 12847) on :
I'm going to sit this one out, as I really don't feel like supporting a politician from Chicago's "Machine", who really hasn't done much in the past four years, or supporting the other side which could possibly be worse for the USA as a whole. --Comparing either side, is kind of like comparing Apples and Oranges.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's troublesome. I like both apples and oranges.
Can't one of them be a blueberry? I don't like blueberries.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't like blueberries.
What is WRONG with you?!?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tovarich Volk: who really hasn't done much in the past four years, or supporting the other side which could possibly be worse for the USA as a whole.
A relevant quote I've seen (attributed to Chris Rock, couldn't say if he actually said it):
"If you vote against Obama because he can’t get stuff done, it’s kind of like saying ‘This guy can’t cure cancer. I’m gonna vote for cancer.’"
Edit: This may or may not be relevant, depending on what "done much" means to you. Also sitting out isn't quite the same as voting against. Still, I wanted to mention it because the "not doing much" is not for lack of trying.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tovarich Volk: Comparing either side, is kind of like comparing Apples and Oranges.
Sure, if you buy into the narrative that each side is equally as bad, just ~different~
Which I haven't been permitted in a long time.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:If he keeps this up, Obama will hold his several point lead into October, and then it's the debates, which I still think Obama will dominate, and then it's the election.
You've said this several times and I've become curious: what makes you think Obama will do so much better in the debates? I find it hard to believe either of them is really going to sweep the floor with the other. I mean this isn't like one really smart guy versus one really stupid one. And while the issues seem like an obvious home-run from one side it looks the opposite from the other (i.e. neither one of them supports extremist policies in the milieu of American politics). Debates, historically, haven’t been the source of big bumps for either side, even when one or more of these factors was in play and while this is a bit sad, I don’t see why that should change this cycle.
Hobbes Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I think it is possible that Obama could really jam it to Romney in the debates but I honestly think it is pointless to wonder if he can do so because even if he crushes Romney from a logical perspective (in effect, if what Obama says is much more truthful and much more logically sound and applicable to the real issues of the election), media is unwilling to presume so with strong language for risk of sounding 'partisan.'
Besides, the format of the debates has become somewhat tedious and predictable, because each side knows that the goal is to ensure that they work scripted responses and narratives within a narrow range of interaction with each other or even with the debate moderator. You have to put on good appearances, decide in the moment to what degree you want to directly address questions posed by the moderator (or rather, how much you are allowed to do so without putting yourself at risk of the opponent opportunistically AVOIDING the direct question), and use all leeway to make sure to hit the primary talking points and work out all the positional pabulum. Victory goes to the most inspired-looking weasel.
The reason people sometimes assume Obama will 'dominate' the debates is that he is honestly just a more inspiring talker and he is better at playing the indirect workaround 'game' that the debates have become, and because he is very good at not making the same sort of gaffes that Romney put himself into such poor image with already, that he carries with him to the debate.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't like blueberries.
What is WRONG with you?!?
I also don't like raspberries or blackberries.
Straw is the only type of berry I like.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I think Obama absolutely could dominate the debates if he went off script and really let himself speak his mind.
If he was far behind in the race maybe he would, but I suspect he'll be mostly playing defense and not taking any chances.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes:
quote:If he keeps this up, Obama will hold his several point lead into October, and then it's the debates, which I still think Obama will dominate, and then it's the election.
You've said this several times and I've become curious: what makes you think Obama will do so much better in the debates? I find it hard to believe either of them is really going to sweep the floor with the other. I mean this isn't like one really smart guy versus one really stupid one. And while the issues seem like an obvious home-run from one side it looks the opposite from the other (i.e. neither one of them supports extremist policies in the milieu of American politics). Debates, historically, haven’t been the source of big bumps for either side, even when one or more of these factors was in play and while this is a bit sad, I don’t see why that should change this cycle.
Hobbes
Because Romney doesn't really have any ideas. He has a list of platitudes. In the past that hasn't been a huge problem for debates because they're essentially a joint press conference where each side rattles off strings of canned phrases they've been saying for weeks, just with a more devoted audience.
But 2008 was different. Especially in the second debate, the town hall style event, Obama repeatedly jammed McCain with direct criticisms and questions, and McCain is a lot better than Romney is at that sort of questioning. I've yet to see any evidence that Romney can stand up to any sort of cross examination, and while the debates don't really allow for this extensively, I think there's just enough of a window for Obama to keep asking Romney for specifics, and to hammer away at what precious few details he has released to make Romney look like the puff of hot air that he really is.
Romney has proven a very smooth deliverer of applause lines and drafted speeches. The GOP likes to hammer Obama for being a teleprompter president, but four years ago he was actually quite excellent at speaking off the cuff. Romney on the other hand has avoided cross-examinations in his interviews, and when confronted with angry voters tends to make extremely awkward gaffes. The only place he shined was at GOP primary debates where he rarely had to do much at all due to his polling numbers, and when he did, it was only to feed fire to the right-wing base with canned applause lines. I think Obama will skewer him.
As for the importance, polls have been showing for weeks that most people who haven't already made up their minds will do so during the debates. If this election hinges on only a couple percent points of the population, and several percent are still up for grabs, it makes the debates the final chance either candidate has to sway those voters.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Obama will win. The guy is a celebrity. But besides that, he's the President, which gives him an automatic advantage (why take a risk on a new guy you don't know when you have one you do?). He's also a passionate speaker who can inspire people with ease. Oh, and he's black.
I know most of those things shouldn't matter, but people are stupid. People will vote for him because of those reasons because most people don't follow the details of politics. Of course, you'll also have the people who do follow politics, and a lot of them will get behind him.
What does Romney have, besides his views? He's an old, creepy-looking, white guy. No offense to the man, but he's competing with the complete opposite of that. In a society of American Idols, Real Worlds, Jersey Shores, and US Magazines, it's tougher than ever to get elected into anything if you're unattractive or hard-to-relate-to. Do you think FDR would have been elected if people knew he was crippled?
Obama is going to win. Not (entirely) because of his politics, but because of how he comes across and how he looks. That's the way the world works. Regardless of whether you agree with his politics or not, the fact remains that he knows how to run a race. That's what it really comes down to in the end.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
On the other hand, how they look is going to be why a lot of people vote for Romney and not Obama.
Just to keep it in perspective.
I'm also not convinced that Romney actually has views, at least, not ones he's shared with us yet.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I've been informed that Romney has the "forehead of intelligence" and that he would be the GOTO guy for Hollywood central casting for a President.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Because Romney doesn't really have any ideas.
He does have ideas, he's just not big on either
1. giving the specifics, or 2. giving the actual plan, if a ridiculous and mathematically impossible premise sounds better and is easier to sell to conservatives in the interim
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't like blueberries.
What is WRONG with you?!?
I also don't like raspberries or blackberries.
Straw is the only type of berry I like.
Straw is the only type of poll I like.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Obama will win. The guy is a celebrity. But besides that, he's the President, which gives him an automatic advantage (why take a risk on a new guy you don't know when you have one you do?). He's also a passionate speaker who can inspire people with ease. Oh, and he's black.
Not only is this sad and cynical, it's not even close to insightful.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Cynical is a lot closer to insightful than optimistic is.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm closer to Benghazi than my Uncle in Oklahoma, but that hardly means I'm close;)
It's a strange world where someone can say, and apparently mean, that Obama's skin color is actually an advantage to most voters rather than a neutral factor or a loss. Romney looks very much like we have tended to like our Presidents to look in this country, quite a bit more than Obama, so to be blunt, Jeff, your analysis seems to be bunk.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: Cynical is a lot closer to insightful than optimistic is.
The two are not directly correlated.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm closer to Benghazi than my Uncle in Oklahoma, but that hardly means I'm close;)
It's a strange world where someone can say, and apparently mean, that Obama's skin color is actually an advantage to most voters rather than a neutral factor or a loss. Romney looks very much like we have tended to like our Presidents to look in this country, quite a bit more than Obama, so to be blunt, Jeff, your analysis seems to be bunk.
Regardless of the bunk-ness of the analysis (which is utter crap, of course), it's just not being intellectually honest.
I see this kind of mental math all the time:
You reduce the entire issue into a few seemingly obvious points (ignoring any complexity that disserves this breakdown). Then you announce that *this* is the important point because "most people are stupid." The implication is of course that *you* are not stupid, but that because everyone else is, what you know doesn't matter.
It's cynical because it makes no attempt to communicate or to elevate dialog at all, and as a bonus, it happens to usually be a reduction so stupid, that it has no relevance to the actual situation, particularly when the question is, in a complex race determined by marginal percentages of specific groups of people, who will win and how. I mean, we know that the winner, Republican and Democrat, will be elected because, ultimately, nearly 50% of the population would have voted for him anyway. The questions we are dealing with have to do with the last few percentage points of people who haven't decided. So these broad statements have little utility, and are anyway mostly wrong, and based more on self-satisfied snarking than any insight worth noting.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't like blueberries.
What is WRONG with you?!?
I also don't like raspberries or blackberries.
Straw is the only type of berry I like.
Do you hate antioxidants, or what?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Not only does he hate them, he's not known for fondness for those who like 'em either!
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Even with it being a wonky analysis, I think the premise is even wrong. I was under the impression that Romney's exceptional good looks were an asset. This is literally the first time I've ever heard anyone claim he's going to lose because he's not attractive enough.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Not only does he hate them, he's not known for fondness for those who like 'em either!
I've been pro-oxidants for years.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes, we've established your perverted lust for oxidants before. I don't think we need to have that conversation again-some people are just finishing dinner, and those who aren't probably hope to eat sometime in the future without knowing about your appreciation for those...things.
What I want to know is why you dislike people who don't sign on for your sins of oxidancy.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Not only does he hate them, he's not known for fondness for those who like 'em either!
I've been pro-oxidants for years.
I think I'll start calling you Rusty.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Yes, we've established your perverted lust for oxidants before. I don't think we need to have that conversation again-some people are just finishing dinner, and those who aren't probably hope to eat sometime in the future without knowing about your appreciation for those...things.
His blood runs brown with oxidation.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Yes, we've established your perverted lust for oxidants before. I don't think we need to have that conversation again-some people are just finishing dinner, and those who aren't probably hope to eat sometime in the future without knowing about your appreciation for those...things.
What I want to know is why you dislike people who don't sign on for your sins of oxidancy.
I blame culture. I was born and raised in the Rust Belt.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rasmussen, which polls likely voters (a much more reliable gauge than registered voters) is saying currently on their website that Romney leads Obama nationwide by three percentage points:
quote:The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 48% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns 45% of the vote. Two percent (2%) prefer some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided. See daily tracking history.
The recent numbers may have been impacted by a number of factors. Clearly, one is the fading of the president’s convention bounce. Last week, Scott Rasmussen anticipated this fade by noting that the conventions would have no lasting impact on the race.
The polls that put Obama up over Romney usually poll registered voters, not likely voters, and there is evidence many of them over-sample democrats, because their sampling is done based on the questionable and biased assumption that there are more Democrats than Republicans among voters.
Rasmussen also has Romney and Obama separated by only one or two points in key battleground states such as Ohio (47% to 46%).
Rasmussen reports that 50% have more confidence in Romney on the economy, while only 43% have more confidence in Obama.
Voters surveyed trust the president more on national security issues, but only by a 3% margin, 46% to 43%. It will be interesting to see how the polls on this change as the dramatic collapse of the president's foreign policy in the Middle East impacts voters.
[ September 15, 2012, 08:52 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Really. Other polls showing Obama ahead right now aren't polling likely voters, eh? Even your beloved Fox News poll (of likely voters) shows Obama ahead. But I suppose this is par for your course: if you get results you don't like, pretend they don't exist and search elsewhere. Even if they're from sources you usually credit highly. Even if your stated preference for looking elsewhere isn't actually applicable.
We're getting closer and closer every day, Ron, to yet another of your predictions being proven badly, comically, predictably wrong. The one about landslides. I'm frankly looking forward to the election for that and other reasons, but that one will be some icing:)
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Notice how conservatives when trying to state what they think is a fact (facts are things that are real in an objective sort of way)?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
As for the profoundly stupid cartoon you linked to, Ron, I'd be interested to hear which of America's foreign policy successes wasn't achieved by a well mixed blend of diplomacy and force. They had, what was his name, Pinkering? HW Bush's Ambassador to the UN on NPR yesterday discussing that very point, not a likely Obama supporter.
Even prominent, respectable Republicans think your guy has behaved foolishly on this matter. But don't worry, Ron! You can as usual pretend that whatever you don't like simply doesn't exist.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Or Rasmussen hasn't quite figured out how to account for the fact that they don't poll cellphones. When all you call is landlines, something more and more young people are abandoning, it gets tricky to get an accurate sense of the electorate. So Rasmussen is relying on landline users (which reflect an aging part of the population, one more likely to vote Republican) and online polls in the hopes it will approximate reality.
Plain and simply, it's more expensive to poll cellphones due to various regulations. Pollsters better figure it out quickly, because the voters aren't where the pollsters are calling anymore.
Say, what happened to that big convention bounce, Ron? I've seen suggestions that Republicans were already fired up before the convention so a big bounce wouldn't be expected. But I'd appreciate hearing you comment on the fact that you predicted a big bounce for Romney which clearly has not happened. I'd appreciate hearing you comment, ever, on anything you predicted incorrectly or said that was lately disproven. You know, ever.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The closest he came to that was by claiming he didn't predict a big convention bounce, he only posted what other sources had reported.
That's a lie, of course-he posted other predictions of a big bounce, and enthusiastically agreed with those predictions. And even that cringing, sideways scuttle towards the truth (something of a real pioneering trip for Ron!) had to be dragged out of him by at least half a dozen repetitions for an admission.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Rasmussen, which polls likely voters (a much more reliable gauge than registered voters) is saying currently on their website that Romney leads Obama nationwide by three percentage points:
quote: Rasmussen's polls were the least accurate of the major pollsters in 2010, having an average error of 5.8 points and a pro-Republican bias of 3.9
Sounds about right.
Hey Ron, do you want to answer my question about the republican convention bounce yet? You've run away from it each time.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Parks: "You knew Ron would be in the thread the instant someone directed to any poll ANYWHERE that showed Romney ahead"
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Samprimary, I've already answered your question about the Republican Convention bounce. I said that what I reported was what some commentators on FNC said, and it is apparent that they were actually talking about a percentage increase in Twitter activity following the speeches by Ann Romney, etc. As I noted, it is obvious that results of regular polls are not available only a few hours after a speech.
As for the relative "inaccuracy" of the Rasmussen polls, have you forgotten that in 2010 Republicans swamped Democrats nationwide, and took over control of the House, and came close to taking control of the Senate? This was in line with what Rasmussen was predicting. Expecially in special elections to replace candidates who for one reason or another had to be replaced before the regular elections, the Republican candidates won consistently, especially the ones supported by the Tea Party--which is when Democrats developed their present desperate fear of the Tea Party.
Please note that I not only claimed Rasmussen's polls are more accurate, I explained why. I also explained why other polls put Obama a few points ahead--because they oversample Democrats because of faulty and biased assumptions about what percentage of the general electorate is Democrat. Feel free to dispute this if you can.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Nate Silver, who has his finger closer to the pulse of the American electorate than any one else I've ever seen, leans towards the general understanding that most people identify as Republicans than Democrats. And yet Silver routinely assails Rasmussen as having a rather large and inaccurate Republican bias.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:As for the relative "inaccuracy" of the Rasmussen polls, have you forgotten that in 2010 Republicans swamped Democrats nationwide, and took over control of the House, and came close to taking control of the Senate? This was in line with what Rasmussen was predicting. Expecially in special elections to replace candidates who for one reason or another had to be replaced before the regular elections, the Republican candidates won consistently, especially the ones supported by the Tea Party--which is when Democrats developed their present desperate fear of the Tea Party.
The claim isn't that Rasmussen is wrong as that's not how polling works. As a polster you aren't "right" or "wrong", you're just further or closer to an accurate representation of the relevant population. Rasmussen has a bias toward Republicans that shift's their results to the right of reality.
So if Rasmussen says the Republicans are up by 10%, then the actual numbers (reflected in votes counted during the election) is probably more in the range of 4%-6%. Rasmussen picking a winner isn't nearly as relevant here as the margin by which they predicted the win would occur. I'm not going to take the time right now to review all of the 2010 polls, but I'd be very unsurprised to find that Nate Silver had predicted the same wins that Rasmussen did, but with less deviation from actual voting margins.
In a very close race these biases of a few points make all the diference so Rasmussen is not the best source to go to if you've got a dead heat or close to it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Please note that I not only claimed Rasmussen's polls are more accurate, I explained why. I also explained why other polls put Obama a few points ahead--because they oversample Democrats because of faulty and biased assumptions about what percentage of the general electorate is Democrat. Feel free to dispute this if you can.
This is not the way national polling works. They don't start with a specific number of democrats and republicans and ask them how they'll vote. They don't have assumptions about how many democrats there are. There are polls that do have these assumptions, but not polls purporting to represent likely election outcomes.
Besides, there are very reliable figures on how many democrats there are. We are registered.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
What MattP said. To grade a poll as thoroughly reliable because it picked a winner is...exactly the sort of prediction-grading I would expect out of Ron, actually, now that I think about it.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
::::yawn::::
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yeah... I'm with you on that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Samprimary, I've already answered your question about the Republican Convention bounce. I said that what I reported was what some commentators on FNC said, and it is apparent that they were actually talking about a percentage increase in Twitter activity following the speeches by Ann Romney, etc. As I noted, it is obvious that results of regular polls are not available only a few hours after a speech.
The question was "Do you even know what the bounce ended up being? What was the bounce percentage?"
you haven't answered it at all. I am amazed you think you have. it is a pretty simple question.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Ron, the news during the RNC was constantly talking about the post-convention "bounce" and not one of them were talking about twitter accounts. They thought there would be a percent bounce in the polls after the convention.
IRL, this may be the first convention that had no bounce at all. In fact, they LOST a percent according to Gallup, the people who actually DO the polling.
It looked like he was going to get about a 1% bounce, which is about the norm, but in fact he lost a percent post-convention.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Nuh-uh. Landslide, it's gonna be a landslide for Mittens. And if it ain't, Obama voters hate America.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Watching Ron be surprisingly incapable of even understanding what my question was — even when repeatedly restated in absolutely clear terms
... or show any indication that he even understands that he has not at all answered my question even when repeatedly asked...
... provides some insight into the mechanisms of Ron's outlier case of a mismatch between confidence in his own interpretations (complete) versus their actual real world performance in terms of either predictive power or demonstrable truth (extremely poor) — his brain has some kind of outlier tendency to be completely and reflexively unwilling and unable to confront where his predictions go awry.
Another person would be able to see where their anticipation of the convention bump for the RNC meets the reality, whereas Ron has only a mechanism to not see it — to afterwards reflexively decide through some dissociative potential that he must only have been thinking of or listening to people talk about twitter talk trends, or something. At that point you can't even ask him what the convention bounce ended up being.
The very question, no matter how simply put, just bounces off his brain before it can reach a point that causes him to confront a mismatch between his apprehension of his abilities and the reality of his predictions. He doesn't allow himself that. He is a walking engine of cognitive dissonance and dunning-kruger.
God this psychoanalysis armchair is comfortable let me tell you
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
A regular Republican versus Democrat election is so close. But Mitt isn't energizing his base. He's saying a lot of dumb things. And Obama will sweep the Dems, the gays, the blacks, and probably a fair chunk of the independents. His power comes in that non-voters will turn up in droves (including the youth vote). This effect isn't reflected in the polls.
Anyone that thinks Mitt has a chance is deluded. He stands a worse chance than Kerry did. It's like the Utes / BYU game. Sure, you want your team to win. But don't bet the farm on it like an idiot.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Anyone that thinks Mitt has a chance is deluded.
I am not going to call the election certifiably concluded, but with this recent round of knells for Romney and his frankly bizarre campaign — as well as the telltale raising of dissension in the ranks — it has at least become boring. Essentially, this is Obama's race. Unless Obama is forced to endure an election disaster that works out specifically in Mitt's favor, Obama wins. That's it.
So it's not really interesting anymore. All you have left are the senate races to care about.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
After 2004, I am not getting comfortable.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: After 2004, I am not getting comfortable.
2004? The incumbent won that year.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I think she just means that at the time she thought Bush was so horrifically bad and so hated that there was no way the American people could be stupid enough to re-elect him. But then they did, so that was a rude awakening, and she doesn't want to be complacent in that way again. No matter how insanely evil and machiavellian and unpopular the Republican candidate seems to be and no matter how many unicorns the Democratic candidate has in his stable.
I think. I'm not Kate, so I may have misread her. She'll correct me if I did. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Bush is only less terrible and easier to swallow in hindsight (domestically that is) if you think of it in terms of under Bush there was far less regression on progressive issues like Social Security then there is/was under Obama in the name of compromise.
And maybe in foreign policy as well if you consider the assassination of American citizens to be bad. I feel like as if the Imperial Presidency has been expanded far more decisively and systematically under Obama than the more furtive efforts under Bush and Cheney.
Maybe there was cause to be thankful for the relative incompetence in the executive branch as opposed to the far more capable administration in office, doesn't help that the GOP aren't doing their jobs.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:No matter how insanely evil and machiavellian and unpopular the Republican candidate seems to be and no matter how many unicorns the Democratic candidate has in his stable.
Well, let's be fair, Dan: how many unicorns would Obama have to have before you'd vote for him?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Certainly more than can be found in all Ponyville.
Posted by happymann (Member # 9559) on :
For me, I'd need proof that he had 11 unicorns. Then I'd vote for him. Ah, who am I kidding. I'm not voting for president this year.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
It's a little amusing reading about Romney's "screw-ups" that are going to surely doom him at the same time I watch the 538 prediction model plunging Obama's chances.
I know its mostly just correcting from an inflated post-convention bounce, but still, I'm not sure that anything short of a full scale scandal is really going to hurt Romney's chances any. He's still going to be "Not-Obama", and that seems to be the entirety of his support.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Which are comfortably still above 70%?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
That isn't very comfortable to me. If you have a roulette wheel with 3 red squares and 7 black, I'm not at all comfortable saying "Surely it will land on black" when I spin the wheel.
More to the point, if these blunders are truly damaging to Romney, why are the polls going in the wrong direction?
There could be valid answers for this (not enough time for them to show up, etc), but its still amusing to me.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: That isn't very comfortable to me. If you have a roulette wheel with 3 red squares and 7 black, I'm not at all comfortable saying "Surely it will land on black" when I spin the wheel.
Sure. But anybody with about $100 could work those odds and come out a wealthy man.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Not if you only get one spin. You're probably going to win, but there's also a fair chance you lose your whole stack.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: More to the point, if these blunders are truly damaging to Romney, why are the polls going in the wrong direction?
There could be valid answers for this (not enough time for them to show up, etc), but its still amusing to me.
"not enough time for them to show up" is actually pretty much exactly right. The polls are actually, for the most part, following a trend pretty typical of the ratcheting back of convention periods. But if you want some crude "what if the election was held today" results factoring in everything that has had time to filter into the data (which, should be noted, doesn't include romney's leaked video or his rushed press conference defense), you can click on 'nowcast' and take a look at Romney's hypothetical numbers.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Not if you only get one spin. You're probably going to win, but there's also a fair chance you lose your whole stack.
Well yeah, if you only get one spin. I'd still take those odds on general principle.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
And by poor I mean lucky.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
There Will Be A Democratic President by this time Next Year. according to Governor Romney.
We have 2 choices.
Choice A) President Obama gets re-elected. He is a Democrat.
Choice B) Governor Romney gets elected. One of the first things he has promised to do is remove the Capital Gains Tax, and all taxes on Investments. This will put his Income Tax burden to 0. Having an income tax of 0 puts him in the 47% of Americans who pay no income tax. According to Governor Romney, that 47% is defiantly and self-victimized as unalterably Democratic. Hence Romney will become a Democrat.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Well, I don't think he explicitly called them democrats. He's just saying that if hypothetically he removes himself from paying income tax he's one of those people who will vote for Obama no matter what.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Another person would be able to see where their anticipation of the convention bump for the RNC meets the reality, whereas Ron has only a mechanism to not see it — to afterwards reflexively decide through some dissociative potential that he must only have been thinking of or listening to people talk about twitter talk trends, or something. At that point you can't even ask him what the convention bounce ended up being.
The very question, no matter how simply put, just bounces off his brain before it can reach a point that causes him to confront a mismatch between his apprehension of his abilities and the reality of his predictions. He doesn't allow himself that. He is a walking engine of cognitive dissonance and dunning-kruger.
God this psychoanalysis armchair is comfortable let me tell you
OSC wrote about this phenomenon in Xenocide. Specifically, he described the Hive Queen as being incapable of promise keeping, because new decisions bred a different reality in her mind. Everything that she had thought before or promised or decided before became immaterial, and she could not be held accountable for promises made- even understanding that a prediction of events existed, or that a particular decision had been reached in the past. She believes completely in the present reality, and is unable to recall being wrong.
So I'm saying, maybe Ron is a Hive Queen?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Rasmussen is even pretty known for republican overvaluation and relies on robocall data which is pretty dated and (i think) loses out on the landlineless likely voters.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Yup. It's not notable that Obama is up, it's notable that Rasmussen has Obama up.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I hold Mother Jones responsible for torpedoing the last leg off the already ailing Romney campaign.
quote:I would like to take this chance to remind everyone that earlier this year Mitt Romney was pretty unanimously considered the strongest candidate in the Republican field — by a large margin. He was, without much question, the most electable of the primary bunch and the toughest opponent for Barack Obama. He was disciplined, well-funded, and had a moderate background that appealed to independents. He was, in short, the very best the Republicans had to offer in the year 2012.
This was not a fantasy, either. It was an accurate assessment. Romney was the best they had. The very best.
Let that sink in for a bit.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I actually took it as a good sign for Obama that it seemed to me that a lot of potential candidates were planning on waiting for 2016. There has been a lot of talk about how this election was a "gimme" or "slam dunk" for them, but I think behind closed doors they did not want to be the ones running against Obama.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I hold Mother Jones responsible for torpedoing the last leg off the already ailing Romney campaign.
Now there's a rag that's likely to be read by undecided and independent voters.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I hold Mother Jones responsible for torpedoing the last leg off the already ailing Romney campaign.
Now there's a rag that's likely to be read by undecided and independent voters.
It doesn't matter whether they read Mother Jones or note. Everyone who follows politics knows about the videos they released, or has at least come across Romney's quotes. What major news organization *didn't* cover this story?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
This just reeks of entitlement and classism.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I hold Mother Jones responsible for torpedoing the last leg off the already ailing Romney campaign.
Now there's a rag that's likely to be read by undecided and independent voters.
It doesn't matter whether they read Mother Jones or note. Everyone who follows politics knows about the videos they released, or has at least come across Romney's quotes. What major news organization *didn't* cover this story?
Oh I see, because they got the Romney 47% comment? I forgot that they first broke the story.
Oops!
So yeah, because of that I totally misread Sam's comment as being about their articles and readership. But that was the "twisting the knife" part. I get it now.
My bad.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Right, I was looking over his post afterwards and thought you might've mistakenly read his comment as referring to the most recent link he posted.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ugh, America is just so UNFAIR! Romney shouldn't have to go through this whole election process with its questions and its criticisms, that's for OTHER people.
And seriously, the "chattering classes" after the remark her husband made? It's like every time they protest being called elitist they say exactly the right thing to cement that image, and it's BOTH of them doing it.
If it's possible, I think she's even worse at it than he is.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How very Palinesque.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
Ezra Klein nailed it. This speaks directly to what bothered me about Romney's comments at the fundraier. And for the record, I don't only fault Romney for this line of thinking (or campaigning). It certainly crosses political boundaries. Just that Romney and the Republican party seem to be embracing this wrong-headed thinking as a kind of platform.
quote: The thing about not having much money is you have to take much more responsibility for your life. You can’t pay people to watch your kids or clean your house or fix your meals. You can’t necessarily afford a car or a washing machine or a home in a good school district. That’s what money buys you: goods and services that make your life easier, that give you time and space to focus on what you want to focus on.
...[Romney's] comments evince no understanding of how difficult it is to focus on college when you’re also working full time, how much planning it takes to reliably commute to work without a car, how awful it is to choose between skipping a day on a job you can’t afford to lose and letting your sick child fend for herself. The working poor haven’t abdicated responsibility for their lives. They’re drowning in it.
...The poor use up an enormous amount of their mental energy just getting by. They’re not dumber or lazier or more interested in being dependent on the government. They’re just cognitively exhausted...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
How we all looking now?
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
The time has come,
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
for us to assemble,
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
the Walrus said,
Posted by RivalOfTheRose (Member # 11535) on :
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)