![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpolitics
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.
* 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,
* 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.
(no subject)
Date: 6/11/12 03:24 (UTC)I mean you're wandering into some strange waters when you start claiming that the previous President and the current party candidate were somehow simultaneously Republican and not conservative.
George W Bush claimed to be a conservative, he spent money like a conservative President, he started pointless wars like a conservative President, he signed the Patriot Act and oversaw the Department of Homeland Security like one. He had the NSA spy on Americans via the AT&T debacle. Those sure the fuck aren't liberal actions.
(no subject)
Date: 6/11/12 03:36 (UTC)Romney didn't reinvent himself as much as tried to stand behind his record in Massachusetts as conservative. It didn't work, since most primary voters voted against him. We all wished he was as extreme as his opponents attempted to paint him.
I mean you're wandering into some strange waters when you start claiming that the previous President and the current party candidate were somehow simultaneously Republican and not conservative.
It is strange if you think of the two as synonymous. They haven't been for some time.
George W Bush claimed to be a conservative, he spent money like a conservative President, he started pointless wars like a conservative President, he signed the Patriot Act and oversaw the Department of Homeland Security like one.
In that he didn't take the conservative course on any of them?
He had the NSA spy on Americans via the AT&T debacle. Those sure the fuck aren't liberal actions.
I've always held that Bush was a centrist. As many of his positions - the NSA being a good example - were fairly statist in nature, they fit pretty well with left wing ideology on that basis alone.
(no subject)
Date: 6/11/12 03:44 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/11/12 08:56 (UTC)"In what universe..." sums it up entirely.
If Obama wins, I'll be pleased that a Republican won't be taking the credit for eventually pulling the US out of its financial mess.
Hillary 2016.
(no subject)
Date: 6/11/12 05:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/11/12 12:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/11/12 14:10 (UTC)OK.
(no subject)
Date: 6/11/12 14:36 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/11/12 16:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/11/12 16:52 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/11/12 17:55 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/11/12 17:07 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 6/11/12 17:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/11/12 17:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/11/12 17:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/11/12 18:08 (UTC)