Romney VS Obama: The Megathread

[Death Metal]

Steven Colbert just burned Romney nicely.

[Death Metal]

Jon Stewart nails it again.

And Wamitoria posts that he forgot it again in 3, 2, 1....

FUUUUUU-

1:01EST is the replay. After... OMG NEW LEWIS BLACK SPECIAL WTFBBQAWESOME

[New Chalcedon]

For those who've been talking about the way Mitt Romney needs to run the table: he does.

(1) Obama's highly unlikely to lose any of the Kerry States this year. That gets Obama starting with 245 Electoral College votes (down from the 251 that Kerry received for winning the same States, due to reapportionment after the 2010 Census).

(2) Polls have consistently shown that New Mexico is off the table, in Obama's favour. Kerry lost NM in 2004; however, history may well record (given the GOP's well-documented and increasing problem with the Latino vote) that 2004 was the last time that the Republican Party won it for a generation or more. Obama's now at 250 Electors.

(3) This means that, in order to reach the magic number of 270 (an absolute majority of the Electoral College, and thus the Presidency), here are the 'swing states' that Obama needs to compete in:

Colorado (9 EVs), Florida (29 EVs), Iowa (7 EVs), Nevada (5 EVs), North Carolina (15 EVs), Ohio (18 EVs), and Virginia (13 EVs).

Any three of these States can give Obama victory.
Any of the bigger States, plus any of the smaller States, can give Obama victory.
Florida on its own can give Obama victory.

Here's the bad news for Team Romney: Obama's ahead in all of these States but North Carolina, by varying margins. While it's certainly possible that a last-minute "throw the kitchen sink" at Obama strategy could work (by subjecting the voting public of these states to about a month of concentrated slanders, smears and assorted lies about the President at a time when Democrats lack the resources to fight back effectively), Romney wasted his last, best chance to change the narrative - the RNC.

That's what the conventions are, even today: the convening party's chance to set the narrative, at least for a while, to one that favours them. And the Republican Party blew theirs: they changed the narrative, all right, but not to one they wanted. The Republican Party came out of Tampa looking like a group of desperate people willing to say or do anything to win the Presidency, not like a viable alternative to Obama. Between the octogenerian yelling at an empty chair, the Vice-Presidential pick who was so deceitful that even Fox News commented about it, the constant riffing on a theme made out of balsawood and more lies ("We did build that!") and the angry-white-guy vibe that permeated the gathering ("This is how we feed animals!"), the GOP did not hold a convention that in any particular way helped them.

Contrast this with the DNC: multiple speakers staying on-topic, only a few long and droning speeches (Gov. O'Malley didn't cover himself in glory, for instance), no empty chairs at all, actually inviting their former President to the Convention (I'm not exactly surprised, but neither Bush was invited to the RNC) and actually acting like a political party that's at least willing to try to live up to America's ideals. Not to mention their warm welcome to former Republicans - one theme that cannot be taken away from the DNC is hatred for the opposing side of politics - again, unlike the RNC.

[Death Metal]

Drill baby drill v 2.0 means Romney loses Florida, so.

[PapaJacky]

lol. Has anybody bothered to go through the transcript of Clinton's speech and Romney/Ryan's speeches to compare who used more statistics than the other?

[New Chalcedon]

lol. Has anybody bothered to go through the transcript of Clinton's speech and Romney/Ryan's speeches to compare who used more statistics than the other?

Clinton generally used more accurate ones, and phrased them in terms that mean something to the average American.

[PapaJacky]

I know that much, but that's not what I'm asking for herp.

[New Chalcedon]

I know that much, but that's not what I'm asking for herp.

What I'm getting at is that the number of statistics/data points Clinton used compared to Romney doesn't matter. The ones he used, he used more effectively and honestly.

[PapaJacky]

That's again, irrelevant as I can argue that the sheer number of statistics used matters because whether or not they are true is irrelevant given that most Democrats/Republicans don't care to check the facts after hearing rhetoric anyways.

Also, obligatory post about how stupid arguing whether or not the number of statistics matters or not and urging someone to bother to count them up.

[The Black Forrest]

That's again, irrelevant as I can argue that the sheer number of statistics used matters because whether or not they are true is irrelevant given that most Democrats/Republicans don't care to check the facts after hearing rhetoric anyways.

Also, obligatory post about how stupid arguing whether or not the number of statistics matters or not and urging someone to bother to count them up.

Well? I wouldn't be wagging any fingers if you don't bother to look them up.....

[PapaJacky]

Which was why I asked if anyone bothered to do so lol. It's not any thing accusatory it's just a manner of laziness on my part.

[Quebec and Atlantic Canada]

Drill baby drill v 2.0 means Romney loses Florida, so.

Wrap it up Romneyailures

[Not Safe For Work]

That's again, irrelevant as I can argue that the sheer number of statistics used matters because whether or not they are true is irrelevant given that most Democrats/Republicans don't care to check the facts after hearing rhetoric anyways.

...which is irrelevant, because the partisans weren't ever going to change their votes, anyway.

The presence or absence of data like statistics matters in only two ways - as a confirmation to the faithful (in which case accuracy and even number are irrelevant), or as leverage on the undecided - in which case number of instances matters far less than the validity of the claims, or the ease with which they can be verified.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

That's again, irrelevant as I can argue that the sheer number of statistics used matters because whether or not they are true is irrelevant given that most Democrats/Republicans don't care to check the facts after hearing rhetoric anyways.

Also, obligatory post about how stupid arguing whether or not the number of statistics matters or not and urging someone to bother to count them up.

But..but..DAMN YOU AND DAMN THAT LAST SENTENCE!

[PapaJacky]

That's again, irrelevant as I can argue that the sheer number of statistics used matters because whether or not they are true is irrelevant given that most Democrats/Republicans don't care to check the facts after hearing rhetoric anyways.

...which is irrelevant, because the partisans weren't ever going to change their votes, anyway.

The presence or absence of data like statistics matters in only two ways - as a confirmation to the faithful (in which case accuracy and even number are irrelevant), or as leverage on the undecided - in which case number of instances matters far less than the validity of the claims, or the ease with which they can be verified.

Which is irrelevant because that isn't the subject at hand! (remember we were talking about who used the most statistics!)

[Not Safe For Work]

...which is irrelevant, because the partisans weren't ever going to change their votes, anyway.

The presence or absence of data like statistics matters in only two ways - as a confirmation to the faithful (in which case accuracy and even number are irrelevant), or as leverage on the undecided - in which case number of instances matters far less than the validity of the claims, or the ease with which they can be verified.

Which is irrelevant because that isn't the subject at hand! (remember we were talking about who used the most statistics!)

No, you were, and everyone else was telling you what a pointless question it was.

And it is. It's like asking who used the word 'and' most often.

[PapaJacky]

Which is irrelevant because that isn't the subject at hand! (remember we were talking about who used the most statistics!)

No, you were, and everyone else was telling you what a pointless question it was.

And it is. It's like asking who used the word 'and' most often.

No, I asked, everyone else went with the "we're not sure, but it doesn't really matter so lets not discuss that part!"

So unless you actually feel like counting how much statistics Romney/Ryan used, then my question remains unanswered and I remain lazy.

[TaQud]

For those who've been talking about the way Mitt Romney needs to run the table: he does.

(1) Obama's highly unlikely to lose any of the Kerry States this year. That gets Obama starting with 245 Electoral College votes (down from the 251 that Kerry received for winning the same States, due to reapportionment after the 2010 Census).

(2) Polls have consistently shown that New Mexico is off the table, in Obama's favour. Kerry lost NM in 2004; however, history may well record (given the GOP's well-documented and increasing problem with the Latino vote) that 2004 was the last time that the Republican Party won it for a generation or more. Obama's now at 250 Electors.

(3) This means that, in order to reach the magic number of 270 (an absolute majority of the Electoral College, and thus the Presidency),

What about that winning Ohio = winning The election thing? (couldn't that add up tp 268?)

[Gauthier]

For those who've been talking about the way Mitt Romney needs to run the table: he does.

(1) Obama's highly unlikely to lose any of the Kerry States this year. That gets Obama starting with 245 Electoral College votes (down from the 251 that Kerry received for winning the same States, due to reapportionment after the 2010 Census).

(2) Polls have consistently shown that New Mexico is off the table, in Obama's favour. Kerry lost NM in 2004; however, history may well record (given the GOP's well-documented and increasing problem with the Latino vote) that 2004 was the last time that the Republican Party won it for a generation or more. Obama's now at 250 Electors.

(3) This means that, in order to reach the magic number of 270 (an absolute majority of the Electoral College, and thus the Presidency),

What about that winning Ohio = winning The election thing? (couldn't that add up tp 268?)

No Republican Presidential candidate succeeded without winning Ohio.

[Not Safe For Work]

No, you were, and everyone else was telling you what a pointless question it was.

And it is. It's like asking who used the word 'and' most often.

No, I asked, everyone else went with the "we're not sure, but it doesn't really matter so lets not discuss that part!"

So unless you actually feel like counting how much statistics Romney/Ryan used, then my question remains unanswered and I remain lazy.

It's not that I don't feel like it, although I don't. No, what's important is that it's a pointless and trivial concern. I honestly can't see how anyone would listen to the various pitches made by the various celebrities/politicians over the last couple of weeks, and decide to themselves "hey, it's the frequency of statistical citations, no matter how inaccurate" that's the important concern here.

I don't know if you ever watch The Big Bang Theory. In this case, you are Sheldon, and no one cares if it was a Jacuzzi or a hot tub.

[New Chalcedon]

For those who've been talking about the way Mitt Romney needs to run the table: he does.

(1) Obama's highly unlikely to lose any of the Kerry States this year. That gets Obama starting with 245 Electoral College votes (down from the 251 that Kerry received for winning the same States, due to reapportionment after the 2010 Census).

(2) Polls have consistently shown that New Mexico is off the table, in Obama's favour. Kerry lost NM in 2004; however, history may well record (given the GOP's well-documented and increasing problem with the Latino vote) that 2004 was the last time that the Republican Party won it for a generation or more. Obama's now at 250 Electors.

(3) This means that, in order to reach the magic number of 270 (an absolute majority of the Electoral College, and thus the Presidency),

What about that winning Ohio = winning The election thing? (couldn't that add up tp 268?)

Sorry, I was halfway through writing the post, then deleted most of it and started again. But some bits of the old one remained, leaving a thing or two that don't make sense in their new context.

None of which invalidates the point: Romney needs to essentially run the table to win. Given Obama's relatively safe 250 EC votes to start with, Romney needs to win the following:

(1) Florida; and
(2) At least two of Ohio, North Carolina and Virginia; and
(3)Colorado or Iowa (both, unless Romney wins all three states named above); and
(4) Missouri and Indiana.

Granted, the last two are all but in the bag, and North Carolina shows a Romney lead. But that's a lot of offense to have to play. OTOH, if Team Obama wins Florida, Romney's finished. If Obama wins any of Ohio/Virginia/North Carolina and any other swing state, Romney's finished. If he wins any two of them Romney's finished. If Obama somehow wins Indiana or Missouri (very unlikely), Romney's finished, if only because Obama's not winning either of them without also winning all of the other named States.

Basically, Obama has many more paths open to victory than Romney. Just as importantly, polling to date places Obama at an advantage in more than enough States to win, despite a four year, non-stop smear campaign against him, constant and unprincipled (to the point of being treasonous, such as deliberately harming the country over the debt ceiling crisis simply to make Obama look bad) obstruction from the congressional GOP, a media that stopped loving him the day he won the election and started hating him because he didn't wave a magic wand and fix everything and - oh yes, a shitty economy that was shedding 750,000 jobs per month the day he took office.

No Republican Presidential candidate succeeded without winning Ohio.

Until 2008, no Democrat lost the Ohio primaries, then went on to win the White House. Don't place too much stock in the past.

And it's true (barely) that Obama could win Ohio and still lose the election. Like this, although I frankly don't see it happening - I just can't see Team Romney losing Ohio, but sweeping all the other swing States, which is essentially what he'd have to do.

I personally think the map will - barring a game changer at this stage - end up looking like this (297-206, with 35 "tied" - Florida and Iowa,whom I really cannot predict). This is before taking into account the effect of the Republican Voter ID laws (which will prevent millions of poor and minority - and hence largely Democratic - voters from getting to the polls), or their other efforts to make it harder to vote (such as Ohio Sec. of State Jon Husted's infamous decision to cut back early voting in Democratic-heavy counties). I tried to make a list of Republican voter suppression efforts in swing States alone, but that turned out to be longer than the rest of this post - and it wasn't even half done - so I abandoned it.

[New Chalcedon]

Oooooh, this makes my blood boil:

Thompson campaign gay-baits opponent

Apparently, the fact that Thompson's opponent, Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) is lesbian is significant enough to be used to fundraise by appealing to homophobia, saying that Baldwin's lesbian orientation means that she cannot "share heartland values".

WTF? Apparently, being a homophobic prick is now a "heartland value".

Fuck Tommy Thompson - he just lost the last shred of respect I ever had for him (and I had some, considering him a voice of sanity among the GOP).

[Bodegraven]

Oooooh, this makes my blood boil:

Thompson campaign gay-baits opponent

Apparently, the fact that Thompson's opponent, Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) is lesbian is significant enough to be used to fundraise by appealing to homophobia, saying that Baldwin's lesbian orientation means that she cannot "share heartland values".

WTF? Apparently, being a homophobic prick is now a "heartland value".

Fuck Tommy Thompson - he just lost the last shred of respect I ever had for him (and I had some, considering him a voice of sanity among the GOP).

Uhh, NC, I got a question you or ASB probably can answer best: Will this have any effect on the result of the senate race there?

[Williamson]

Has anyone realise. how differnt the democrats and republicans agrements about why their repersentives should be president. The republicans are saying look what happened when obama was President. The democracts are saying look what happen when obama was president. Well maybe not that differnt.

alright i fix some of it.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Has anyone reason how differnt the democrats and republicans agrements about why their repersentives should be president. The republicans are saying look what happened when obama was President. The democracts are saying look what happen when obama was president. Well maybe not that differnt.

What the hell did I just read? The last 3 sentences make sense grammatically, but the first one...doesn't.