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

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

Speak out as your spirit wills, that is an issue at right angles to the assertion that the Media is giving Obama prefered treatment Vis-à-vis Benghazi, which is where this thread began.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

It's not even the media, though it does play a role.

Why is it that we as a society grant absolute moral authority Cindy Sheehan and not to Charles Woods?

Why are we trying to appease these savages by arresting an obscure youtube videographer instead of slaughtering them en mass?

It all comes down to base assunptions.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Why didn't the GOP object to this in Lebanon either in the 1950s or in the 1980s? Why didn't Bush actually ensure Osama Bin Laden was killed in 8 years? Why didn't the GOP object to Reagan giving Iran weapons or giving Iraq the power to gain massive chemical weapons arsenals? It does indeed come down to base assumptions, such as the GOP's base hypocrisy in appealing to base instincts when it spent the last eight years claiming that you're with them or with the terrorists. Turnabout is fair play.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

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.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

This from the guy who accuses Progressives of being either liars or approving of mass murderous ideologies they haven't the balls to actually do even if they think they approve of it? Please. Again, spare me the disingenuous rhetoric that has no relation to observable reality. And it's hypocrisy. Hypocracy means rule of those who lack.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Yes and Yes (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hypocracy)

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

No, hypo- as a word is akin to hypothermia, meaning the absence/lack of something. So hypo- means the lack of. Cracy is connected to the Greek word for rule, akin to Demo-cracy, from Demos, the Greek word for people, or Aristocracy from Aristoi, the Greek word for best. So hypocracy is rule of them that have nothing. So you're just a socialist who doesn't know it. ;)

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

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.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Likewise Republicans have an awful lot to answer for in terms of propping up treacherous lying murderous dictators and calling it freedom.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Of course they do,

All we're doing here is illustrating the fallacy of treating any party as if they have a claim to the moral high-ground.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And when did I ever say any of them did?

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Why is it that we as a society grant absolute moral authority Cindy Sheehan

She was protesting for many months before anyone shined a camera upon her pain. She setup Camp Casey in a media blackout, but they sure came after. At that point, she had been protesting for over a year. And not many people granted her "absolute moral authority". Plenty of people called her a traitor and accused her of shaming her son and gold star mothers. So, I call bs on that, she was definitely questioned by many morally and she stood up to all of them and continued on.

No one has denied the morality of Charles Woods pain.