![[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: 7/11/12 03:18 (UTC)This link seems to demonstrate that it was obviously not a spontaneous event, this coupled with what Libyan officials were saying a few days later. Still took the administration several days to have anyone admit it was.
(no subject)
Date: 7/11/12 16:24 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/11/12 16:43 (UTC)Fox news of course wasn't the only news agency that was reporting that the attack was likely not about a youtube video the next day. You can easily find news articles from the week after the attack coming from a wide variety of sources. Feel free to utilize google.
(no subject)
Date: 7/11/12 17:44 (UTC)Here's a hint -- news organizations are not FBI investigators. The government doesn't get news from FOX. It makes news. There's no reason for them to have listened to FOX.
(no subject)
Date: 7/11/12 18:19 (UTC)What don't you think is true?
Here's a hint -- news organizations are not FBI investigators.
No one is saying that FBI investigators should read the news to conduct their investigations. That is just you trying to change the conversation.
The point was that it was so obvious that the administration wasn't being straightforward to the American people when they were claiming that a youtube video was the cause of the attack. There was no evidence of it and the explanation to the American people was completely false. You can argue all you want that the investigation wasn't complete, but that didn't stop the administration from throwing out false information for several weeks.
The fact of the matter is the Administration was misleading the American public. You can't dispute that. You can argue how and why, if it was intentional or not. If you want to argue that there was such a intelligence failure that Obama would have been better off listening to those guys over at "Faux" News, then knock yourself out, because that is essentially what you are inferring.
So what is it? Why was the administration sticking with their story, even though it was evident to numerous news organizations the next day that their story was bull?
(no subject)
Date: 7/11/12 18:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/11/12 19:48 (UTC)They shared incorrect information that just happened to help them politically then. I mean, how lucky were they, right!? They had evidence that was completely wrong and contradicted common sense, evidence that was so concrete that it took almost a month for them to figure out that it was completely false! Ya, so what, it took Reuters less than two days. News isn't the FBI! A political gift I guess, just like Hurricane Sandy. Just ask Chris Mathews, he'll tell ya. Thank goodness for natural disasters and incompetent intelligence gathering!
(no subject)
Date: 7/11/12 19:51 (UTC)We still don't know exactly what happened in Benghazi, no matter what your political handlers at FOX want you to believe.
And I love how you want to somehow suggest that the hurricane was politically motivated too. Global warming is a myth, but Barack Obama can make fuckin' STORMS HAPPEN.
(no subject)
Date: 7/11/12 20:26 (UTC)Ya it did. I'll just paste what I already said...
"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 wouldn't be able to ignore."
We still don't know exactly what happened in Benghazi, no matter what your political handlers at FOX want you to believe.
We know enough to know it had nothing to do with a youtube video, and we knew that the day after the actual attack.
And I love how you want to somehow suggest that the hurricane was politically motivated too. Global warming is a myth, but Barack Obama can make fuckin' STORMS HAPPEN
You missed the point, but it seems that getting the point is real challenge for you. I'll say it without the sarcasm to make it easier on you. You seem to be suggesting that there is some mythical intelligence out there that was so hard to refute, taking almost a month to do so, that didn't flow with common sense and just happened to be crazy wrong. That was damn politically convenient for the Obama administration if that was the case. Convenient like hurricane Sandy was, you know, in the sense that it was something Obama couldn't control but helped his reelection bid. As Chris Mathews put it last night, "I'm so glad we had that storm last week."
And also stop being ridiculous. You are basing your argument on how the FBI shouldn't listen to Fox News and that storms happen and aren't politically motivated, like, WTF are you talking about? No one is suggesting those things. Get a grip man... and also, why would I need a political handler? Couldn't afford one if I needed one anyways. Crazy talk. I've had conversations with homeless men on the bus that made more sense.
(no subject)
Date: 7/11/12 20:34 (UTC)We didn't know it had nothing to do with a youtube video, and we didn't know that the day after the attack. FOX News did not know. No one knew. You can repeat it all you like. It doesn't make it true.
You are suggesting that the government should have accepted a political interpretation on its face without completing its own investigation. That doesn't -- and shouldn't -- happen, even if the interpretation came from the NYT or Rachel Maddow or whatever.
You lost. It's over. Accept it. Move on.
(no subject)
Date: 8/11/12 04:07 (UTC)That is EXACTLY what happened. The administration ignored common sense and put out a narrative that fit its own political agenda. Whether it was done to mislead the electorate or gross incompetence is up to debate.
Do you seriously think that the best explanation for an attack with assault rifles, grenades, and RPGs on 9/11 that murdered the ambassador and utilized a two-stage attack on two separate areas was a mob that got out of control over a video?
(no subject)
Date: 8/11/12 04:34 (UTC)Your guy politicized it. Thankfully, he'll never be in a position to politicize a tragedy again.
(no subject)
Date: 8/11/12 05:39 (UTC)And what I seriously think is that the administration should have been left alone to do their job, and figure out what happened to the best of their ability, and then find and punish the people responsible.
Just answer the question. Do you think the best explanation for a two-stage attack on a US consulate and a secret CIA annex on 9/11 that resulted in the death of the US ambassador that utilized automatic assault rifles, grenades, and RPGs was that a mob upset over a youtube video got out of control?
(no subject)
Date: 9/11/12 04:17 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/11/12 05:17 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/11/12 06:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/11/12 06:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/11/12 15:18 (UTC)