ext_90803 ([identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] talkpolitics2012-11-05 05:49 pm

Did Obama Actually Reach the Top of His Hill?



If I were to be honest right this moment about what I think is going on with the election, the map above would be it. If you asked me 5 days ago, I'd have been fairly intent that Romney had Ohio sewn up, that Wisconsin was highly likely, that Virginia was locked up. With Hurricane Sandy giving Obama a boost at the end here, we're forced to go with what the data has, and I'm not sure Romney has the path to victory he had a week ago anymore, nor do I have any clue what to make of the states in beige. My gut says Obama takes 3 of 4 of them, if not all 4, even though I still can't make the math work on how some of the poll toplines mesh with the trends in early voting, independent voter preferences and party identification. Regardless, what should have been a cakewalk for Romney has clearly not been.

So what went wrong?


* Romney failed to capitalize: He wasn't "Mr Nice Guy" the way McCain was, for sure, but the reality of the failed presidency of Barack Obama never really made clear from Romney in a way that resonated with the voters he needed. His massive, massive whiff at the town hall debate regarding Benghazi is really unforgivable and likely lost him that debate outright. That they continued to fail to hammer home this massive foreign policy failure (or much of any of Obama's multiple failures in this regard) is a key reason why this stayed close. Part of this was due to...

* Romney's mismanagement of resources: Romney has had a cash on hand advantage for two months now. You'd never know it. Dumping money into ads is one thing, but ads and rallies and lawn signs don't move votes. The "Death Star" approach worked in the primary because no one had any direct money to fight back with, and the campaign's assumption that a flood of advertising and cash in the final weeks would work here clearly did not. Granted, much of the message was blunted by the hurricane, and you can't control that, but when you have 8 weeks of a financial edge, 4 weeks of the wind at your back after the first debate?

* The media: Let's face it - the media largely gave Obama a pass on Benghazi, held Obama to a standard for the bad economy that they haven't historically held others to, and so on and so forth. Meanwhile, Romney's record was distorted, his message thrown into disarray, etc. The media is what the media is, and we can't really change that, but Romney's inability to counter that is on him and his campaign. It would be bad form for Romney to push the Hurricane as well, but given how NYC is faring, given the gas riots and such, we'd expect...different coverage. But hey, Governor Christie is appreciative, so we'll run with it, right?


So can Romney still pull this out? If he does, it will be because the polls are wrong, plain and simple. I've held from the beginning that the data needs to be in the forefront, and the polls, at the end of the day, have not held constant with what one would expect from Obama's presidency. We can complain all day about the sampling of the polls, the likely voter screens, etc, but the data is what the data is, and if the polls are wrong, this will be why:

* Sampling: The likely voter screens have been looser than ever this year, some showing upwards of 80%. The polls have often - but not universally anymore - shown higher-than-expected Democratic samples, but when the better-sampled polls aren't doing much better for Romney, it becomes clear that it's more statistical noise than anything else. That Gallup's shown the most realistic likely voter screen and also the most favorable national poll to Romney isn't a surprise, but Gallup hasn't polled in a week and Sandy is impacting trendlines.

* Ground game: My assumption, at this point in time, is that Romney's ground game advantage in many of these key states will not be enough to overcome 3 point deficits in the polls. If a poll is a tossup, if the state is within 1 in either direction, turnout advantages begin to matter. I don't think Romney is going to lose Iowa by three points, but I don't think he can win it by a hair or two, either.

* Math: It's funny to say this, but this is ultimately Romney's only saving grace at this point - that the prognosticators, even Nate Silver at one time, note that winning campaigns don't lose independents at the rate that Obama is losing them. There's also the early voting issue, which is something pollsters have shown themselves to be quite questionable at while Romney has shown significant gains relative to 2008. Combine these two issues with turnout statistics thus far and...


Overall, I don't really think Romney's going to win at this point. He can, it's possible, but he blew the biggest gift given to a candidate in 30 years on his road to get to this point. Hopefully Republicans learn from this if Obama is coming out as the victor in 30 or so hours, but we'll see where that goes.

[identity profile] dwer.livejournal.com 2012-11-06 04:33 pm (UTC)(link)
of course it's important. That doesn't automatically make it a scandal. Had the Obama administration not responded at the time, they would have gotten pilloried for not having a response. They did respond, with the information that they had, and as that information has changed, they've released it.

It's a tragedy that this happened. But what's a worse tragedy is the GOP trying to politicize it.

[identity profile] dwer.livejournal.com 2012-11-06 04:42 pm (UTC)(link)
how substantive.
weswilson: (Magical Wes Animated)

[personal profile] weswilson 2012-11-06 04:52 pm (UTC)(link)
Plus, the memory of him is REALLY conservative... one must get credit for the way people remember you, even if it's not a reflection of reality at all!

[identity profile] fizzyland.livejournal.com 2012-11-06 05:07 pm (UTC)(link)
Ronald Reagan reversed a long trend of reducing the national debt as a percentage of GDP, which had been lowered by every previous president (except Gerald Ford) since the end of World War II.

Ronald Reagan exploded the federal debt, eventually to over a trillion dollars, by cutting taxes while demanding that the nation fund a huge expansion of the military. He set the trend to be followed by Republican Presidents, fueling an idiotic argument on the right that 'deficits don't matter.'

By that metric, Bill Clinton would be the last conservative President.

[identity profile] sophia-sadek.livejournal.com 2012-11-06 05:10 pm (UTC)(link)
Nice.

[identity profile] sophia-sadek.livejournal.com 2012-11-06 05:12 pm (UTC)(link)
Yes. An essential qualifier. Had he fallen down in that department, he would not have been nominated.

[identity profile] sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com 2012-11-06 05:21 pm (UTC)(link)
My username is not "the_GOP" so please stop lecturing as if it were. Your unwillingness (or is it inability?) to make the distinction between the actions of a political party and the opinions/convictions of individuals who may or may not be members is getting old.

Yes turn about is fair play and that is the point. Democrats hated all this "Imperial Presidency" crap until it was thier guy in office.

The GOP did not object at the time for the same reason that DNC does not object to drone-strikes on american citizens, meddling in the foriegn affairs, or indefinite detention under Obama today.

That is why your cries of hypocracy ring hollow.

[identity profile] sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com 2012-11-06 05:23 pm (UTC)(link)
Likewise if we are to start calling people out on the political positions of their party of choice on incidents from before they were born I would point out that Southern Democrats have a lot more to answer for than just unfortunate results of realpolitik.

[identity profile] 404.livejournal.com 2012-11-06 05:23 pm (UTC)(link)
Physician, heal thyself.

[identity profile] 404.livejournal.com 2012-11-06 05:26 pm (UTC)(link)
You have no patience to anything that doesn't conform to your narrow world view.

[identity profile] dwer.livejournal.com 2012-11-06 05:28 pm (UTC)(link)
you're gonna be a whole barrel o fun in about eight hours.

[identity profile] 404.livejournal.com 2012-11-06 05:28 pm (UTC)(link)
When an Obama official makes the statement that the assassination of the ambassador had something to do with a stupid youtube video, that is a problem, since there was no evidence to even show that the video had anything to do with it, the date chosen by the attackers, the anniversary of 9/11, did not come up. I wonder why?

[identity profile] dwer.livejournal.com 2012-11-06 05:29 pm (UTC)(link)
they were working off of the information they had at the time. When that information changed, they released it. You can try to politicize it all you want; it didn't work, and it will never work.

[identity profile] 404.livejournal.com 2012-11-06 05:31 pm (UTC)(link)
Who wins the presidency doesn't really matter to me. Ideologues like you will either be crowing a Obama victory or claiming voter fraud if Romney wins. It will be fun to watch the contortions of both sides to claim the other side cheated.

[identity profile] 404.livejournal.com 2012-11-06 05:33 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm not politicizing it, it was political to begin with: the right looking to saddle Obama with his inability to protect the embassy, and the left looking to pooh pooh it and divert attention from it.

[identity profile] sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com 2012-11-06 05:36 pm (UTC)(link)
Would you accept a an artical from National Review or Brietbart.com as a valid rebuttal?

[identity profile] telemann.livejournal.com 2012-11-06 05:39 pm (UTC)(link)
Sure. Sure.

[identity profile] telemann.livejournal.com 2012-11-06 05:40 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm sure Daryl Issa will have a new investigation launched into something after tonight. He's very needy, regarding camera time.

[identity profile] dwer.livejournal.com 2012-11-06 05:45 pm (UTC)(link)
untrue. It was politicized by the right.

[identity profile] dwer.livejournal.com 2012-11-06 05:45 pm (UTC)(link)
uh-huh.

[identity profile] 404.livejournal.com 2012-11-06 05:48 pm (UTC)(link)
When an Obama official makes the statement that the assassination of the ambassador had something to do with a stupid youtube video, that is a problem, since there was no evidence to even show that the video had anything to do with it, the date chosen by the attackers, the anniversary of 9/11, did not come up. I wonder why?

[identity profile] fizzyland.livejournal.com 2012-11-06 05:48 pm (UTC)(link)
You may want to consider crossing the aisle in that case. The blue dogs could use more backing. The GOP is always going to be looking for expensive military adventures to deflect focus from domestic issues.

[identity profile] 404.livejournal.com 2012-11-06 05:49 pm (UTC)(link)
Negatory.

[identity profile] 404.livejournal.com 2012-11-06 05:50 pm (UTC)(link)
Cool story, bro.

Page 6 of 12