Did Obama Actually Reach the Top of His Hill?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

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.

Comments

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

It was always Obama's race to lose, not Romney's.

At no point did battleground state polling ever give Romney the win in a 'no toss-up' situation.

And dear lord, what is with the right wing and Benghazi?

It's strange how you tout the math, when you ignore the historical data that favor incumbents in a recovering economy.

And it's unfortunate that once again it seems that Republicans will once again go, "he wasn't conservative enough!" as a response to this instead of joining the majority of the nation on progressive issues. Or maybe it's fortunate since if the economy recovers enough by 2016 and they pull this same shit again it'll give us another 8 years of a Democrat President.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

And dear lord, what is with the right wing and Benghazi?

People don't like being lead along when victim of a terrorist attack.

It's strange how you tout the math, when you ignore the historical data that favor incumbents in a recovering economy

It's not much of a recovery, if we even want to call it that.

And it's unfortunate that once again it seems that Republicans will once again go, "he wasn't conservative enough!" as a response to this instead of joining the majority of the nation on progressive issues. Or maybe it's fortunate since if the economy recovers enough by 2016 and they pull this same shit again it'll give us another 8 years of a Democrat President.

A more conservative candidate would have ended up not needing a momentum game changer like the Denver debate, and wouldn't have had to spend time playing catch up.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

People don't like being lead along when victim of a terrorist attack.

What are you talking about?

It's not much of a recovery, if we even want to call it that.

Irrelevant to my point. People generally give incumbents another four years to continue fixing things.

A more conservative candidate would have ended up not needing a momentum game changer like the Denver debate, and wouldn't have had to spend time playing catch up.

Denver wasn't a game-changer, it was a game-starter. I bet a shitload of people didn't even know who Romney and Obama were until that debate. Our populace is ignorant. And Mitt (at least post-Denver Mitt, not Governor Mitt) was plenty conservative, in fact I'm not sure how more conservative he could get. It's easy to rationalize why he lost if you just apply some No True Scotsman fallacy to him.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

What are you talking about?

I assume you're aware of what went on in Bengahzi, when a terrorist attack occurred and killed four embassy workers including an ambassador?

And Mitt (at least post-Denver Mitt, not Governor Mitt) was plenty conservative, in fact I'm not sure how more conservative he could get.

A lot of us were waiting for him to get pretty conservative. His tax plan was an okay start, I guess, but...

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

A more conservative candidate...

Just stop there. Most Americans are moderate, putting the failure right on top of the party that selected him as their candidate and the unconvincing rhetoic that followed.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

No, "most" Americans (read: a plurality) are conservative. Moderates are second fiddle to that, and the true "center" is somewhere center-right. When we get a choice between two candidates to the left of that, it's no wonder the right becomes less enthused.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

Oh, are you still pushing that Benghazi lie?
How sweet.

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/01/inte...

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/benghazi-timeline-challenges-fox-news-story/2012/11/02/07e6ab0e-2487-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_blog.html

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Holy crap, you're actually defending Obama on this.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/terrorism/261839-timeline-of-libya-attack-reveals-administration-contradictions-

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

So when Clinton gives Bush warning of a terrorist attack and Bush fails to stop it and 3,000 people died, as opposed to a few in an embassy, by this logic Bush should have been impeached for his failure to stop 9/11 and his further bungling the response to it.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Every time the Republicans nominate anyone, they're never conservative enough. That was the complaint with McCain -- just as I assumed -- and it only pushed the party further to the right. Romney will just drive you guys to Ryan/Santorum 2012, which will be hilarious to watch, at least. That Romney could not deliver you a victory, in this economy, ought to tell you something.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

People don't like being lead along when victim of a terrorist attack.

Who led along?

Why did they lead along?

What was the motivation for leading along?

What is the evidence that supports these assertions?

Are these things better explained by other possible interpretations?

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

Who led along?
The administration.

Why did they lead along?

The election

What was the motivation for leading along?

Mitigate the obvious political fallout of having a major terrorist attack that resulted in the assassination of a US ambassador less than two months before the election. Worst yet, it turns out the embassy requested additional security. Emotions run high right after an event like that. By waiting two weeks, or however long it was, before saying it was a terrorist attack the administration avoided a lot of scrutiny even the New York Times couldn't ignore.

What is the evidence that supports these assertions?
The fact that I knew about it for sometime before the administration claimed they did, and so did anyone else who cared to look into it.

Are these things better explained by other possible interpretations?

Massive stupidity? I don't know, but the 'we didn't know for sure' idea doesn't hold water. The administration didn't seem to be bothered by saying the attackers took advantage of the demonstration over a movie, when there was no demonstration over a movie at the embassy.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

And dear lord, what is with the right wing and Benghazi?

...if you really have to ask, then there's nothing I can say to you that will make it any clearer than it already is.

We are of different worlds.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Funny, when Bush was warned about 9/11, bungled chances to stop it, an 3,000 people died I don't remember this reaction from the GOP then, or from the Dems. It seems that unpatriotic faux Americanism is the order of the day for the GOP whenever it can throw shit at the wall and see how much of it will stick. Whatever happened to the days of "Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists?". Oh, right, that only works when a white ChristianTM is in power.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

What exactly are you trying to argue and to whom?

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

Compare the media response to Bengahzi to other attacks on Embassies and Consulates that have killed similar numbers of people over the last 20 years. Try to do so in objective terms, as in how long the event dominated the news cycle, and what political repercussions it had.

Being too outraged to discuss it, well, as Lincoln said, "That speech won't scour,"

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Especially say, Beirut. What a filthy coward that Ronald Reagan was. I suppose it's not so easy to make a hard decision when it's real people as opposed to lines from a script and using props and special effects.

/sarcasm tag for the irony-impaired.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So because I was 11 years old and didn't speak out, I cannot when I'm 30.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

Last Ambassador that was assassinated was 33 years ago.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

Evidently - You clearly prefer to believe what you're spoonfed, not the facts of the matter.



Which happen to be here for your convenience.

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/01/inte...

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/benghazi-timeline-challenges-fox-news-story/2012/11/02/07e6ab0e-2487-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_blog.html

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Is this the world where Fox News thinks Benghazi was a 'cover up' and Obama was 'apologizing' for Americans? Or that he didn't call it a terrorist attack?

I played in the same EVE corp as Sean Smith. I don't appreciate the right running over his grave in order to score political points.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

...if you really have to ask, then there's nothing I can say to you that will make it any clearer than it already is.


You know what is curious about the Benghazi incident? The arguments and tone are of similar style and substance as the 9/11/01 truthers.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

And dear lord, what is with the right wing and Benghazi?

It's a patently obvious coverup of a political mistake (or more than one), that just so happened to let 4 Americans get killed. What's not to be upset about?

Or maybe it's fortunate since if the economy recovers enough by 2016

And if it's worse by then?

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

It's a patently obvious coverup of a political mistake (or more than one), that just so happened to let 4 Americans get killed. What's not to be upset about?


No.

And if it's worse by then?

Then we'll have another close race.