Romney-Obama: Handicapping the Race

[Alien Space Bats]

Of course, the Roberts Court could hand down a ruling eliminating early voting and ordering all votes cast thus far to be thrown out, so there are still other ways for Romney to win Ohio...

... I must admit, the italicized part worries me quite a bit, I mean how would that even work? Is this America, or Ireland voting for a Lisbon Treaty, or Ukraine electing a president? (In both cases, Ireland + Ukraine, in part because those in power didn't like how the vote went, a revote was held.) I thought something like this was Unconstitutional in the US, so I'm wondering how that's possible, can ASB, or someone else, clarify?

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing [sic] the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

- Article I, Section 1, Clause 4

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

- Article I, Section 1, Clause 2

The argument against early voting would primarily be that, unless specifically authorized by Congress, State laws allowing the pratice violate Article I, Section 1, Clause 4, which reserves to Congress broad authority to specify "the Time of chusing [sic] the Electors". Note that the reference to voting taking place on a single "Day [which] shall be the same throughout the United States" is a reference to the meeting date of the Electoral College and not what we think of as "Election Day".

I personally feel that this is an exceptionally weak argument; so long as all votes are held and not counted until "Election Day", then Article I, Section 1, Clause 4 takes precedence and permits the practice. But there are conservatives out there who disagree.

[New Chalcedon]

Well, any hope Obama had of winning the second debate went out the window: the moderator is taking advice on how to run the debate from right-wing talk show host Hugh Hewitt.

Is Candy Crowley even going to pretend to be unbiased in the debate? Doubtful - she'll probably open with "And here's President Obama, being givne an opportunity to explain how his reckless spending hasn't wrecked the country."

[New England and The Maritimes]

Well, any hope Obama had of winning the second debate went out the window: the moderator is taking advice on how to run the debate from right-wing talk show host Hugh Hewitt.

Is Candy Crowley even going to pretend to be unbiased in the debate? Doubtful - she'll probably open with "And here's President Obama, being givne an opportunity to explain how his reckless spending hasn't wrecked the country."

The liberal media strikes again. Poor Romney.

[Silent Majority]

Well, any hope Obama had of winning the second debate went out the window: the moderator is taking advice on how to run the debate from right-wing talk show host Hugh Hewitt.

Is Candy Crowley even going to pretend to be unbiased in the debate? Doubtful - she'll probably open with "And here's President Obama, being givne an opportunity to explain how his reckless spending hasn't wrecked the country."

If I was reading between the lines correctly, all of the questions will be from Republicans, or at least asked from that perspective.


Wow.

[Sane Outcasts]

Well, any hope Obama had of winning the second debate went out the window: the moderator is taking advice on how to run the debate from right-wing talk show host Hugh Hewitt.

Is Candy Crowley even going to pretend to be unbiased in the debate? Doubtful - she'll probably open with "And here's President Obama, being givne an opportunity to explain how his reckless spending hasn't wrecked the country."

That reads as a normal interview.

Where's the bias?

[New Chalcedon]

Well, any hope Obama had of winning the second debate went out the window: the moderator is taking advice on how to run the debate from right-wing talk show host Hugh Hewitt.

Is Candy Crowley even going to pretend to be unbiased in the debate? Doubtful - she'll probably open with "And here's President Obama, being givne an opportunity to explain how his reckless spending hasn't wrecked the country."

That reads as a normal interview.

Where's the bias?

CC: Do you know what’s funny is, and I realize that there were Republicans that criticized Jim as well, but I did see some of the Obama campaign’s complaining about the moderator and this and that. And is that any older than shooting the messenger?

AKA: How to pre-emptively de-legitimise Democratic complaints about the moderator's intended bias.

HH: Well, I won’t try and lobby you on air, except to say Fast & Furious, Fast & Furious, Fast & Furious. But anyway…

CC: (laughing)

AKA: Taking advice from right-wing radio hosts on how to pick questions designed to frame the topics in Republican terms. If she'd been serious about being impartial, she'd have (politely) said, "Sorry, I can't take partisan suggestions for debate questions in advance."

[Sane Outcasts]

That reads as a normal interview.

Where's the bias?

CC: Do you know what’s funny is, and I realize that there were Republicans that criticized Jim as well, but I did see some of the Obama campaign’s complaining about the moderator and this and that. And is that any older than shooting the messenger?

AKA: How to pre-emptively de-legitimise Democratic complaints about the moderator's intended bias.

She was dismissing complaints about the moderator because she and Hewitt were saying Obama's wooden performance was the reason he lost the debate, not anything Lehrer did or did not do. Unless you have some other source that indicates Crowley will try to screw Obama over in the next debate, I read it as a an accurate assessment of the first debate's outcome.

HH: Well, I won’t try and lobby you on air, except to say Fast & Furious, Fast & Furious, Fast & Furious. But anyway…

CC: (laughing)

AKA: Taking advice from right-wing radio hosts on how to pick questions designed to frame the topics in Republican terms. If she'd been serious about being impartial, she'd have (politely) said, "Sorry, I can't take partisan suggestions for debate questions in advance."[/quote]
She laughed at the suggestion. It's entirely possible, since we can't hear the tone of the suggestion, that Hewitt meant it as a joke and she responded appropriately.

Does Crowley have some strong conservative background I don't know about or ever been anti-Obama/anti-Democrat/pro-Romney? This is an awfully weak source you're using to claim that the second debate is practically over because of moderator bias.

[Free South Califas]

There's actually a good reason to feel that way, too. The telephone poll has actually subtly changed in the last few years, due to the increasing prevalence of cell phones, and especially the prevalence of cellphones-as-only-phones.

Balls. Now I'll have even less influence on these things, as my phone has an area code from the next state. Granted, it's the most dynamic county in that state, but still.

[Neo Art]

Of course, the Roberts Court could hand down a ruling eliminating early voting and ordering all votes cast thus far to be thrown out, so there are still other ways for Romney to win Ohio...

And in breaking news, the Supreme Court of the United States has upheld the lower court's ruling allowing Ohio early voting to proceed (although I've heard some version suggesting that the petition to the Supreme Court was denied, so rather than agreeing with the lower court, it appears that SCOTUS simply refused to hear the matter, the result is the same however)

[New Chalcedon]

Of course, the Roberts Court could hand down a ruling eliminating early voting and ordering all votes cast thus far to be thrown out, so there are still other ways for Romney to win Ohio...

And in breaking news, the Supreme Court of the United States has upheld the lower court's ruling allowing Ohio early voting to proceed (although I've heard some version suggesting that the petition to the Supreme Court was denied, so rather than agreeing with the lower court, it appears that SCOTUS simply refused to hear the matter, the result is the same however)

If it's true, the result for now is the same as if SCOTUS upheld the lower court's ruling. However, it's not precedent at the national level as a result of denial of certiorari, and it also has less protection in a future SCOTUS - by which, I mean a SCOTUS that actually respects precedent, which the Roberts Court does not.

[Not Safe For Work]

There's actually a good reason to feel that way, too. The telephone poll has actually subtly changed in the last few years, due to the increasing prevalence of cell phones, and especially the prevalence of cellphones-as-only-phones.

Balls. Now I'll have even less influence on these things, as my phone has an area code from the next state. Granted, it's the most dynamic county in that state, but still.

Most reputable polling groups would bounce you, I'm afraid - since that means your number doesn't match your location. Most of them will bounce you if your number doesn't match numbers for your county, let alone your state.

[Greed and Death]

Of course, the Roberts Court could hand down a ruling eliminating early voting and ordering all votes cast thus far to be thrown out, so there are still other ways for Romney to win Ohio...

And in breaking news, the Supreme Court of the United States has upheld the lower court's ruling allowing Ohio early voting to proceed (although I've heard some version suggesting that the petition to the Supreme Court was denied, so rather than agreeing with the lower court, it appears that SCOTUS simply refused to hear the matter, the result is the same however)

The court is clearly too busy arguing over Fisher v Texas to be concerned with an emergency stay.

[Shofercia]

Of course, the Roberts Court could hand down a ruling eliminating early voting and ordering all votes cast thus far to be thrown out, so there are still other ways for Romney to win Ohio...

And in breaking news, the Supreme Court of the United States has upheld the lower court's ruling allowing Ohio early voting to proceed (although I've heard some version suggesting that the petition to the Supreme Court was denied, so rather than agreeing with the lower court, it appears that SCOTUS simply refused to hear the matter, the result is the same however)

It'd be best for the Court not to hear the case, and just say "we're above petty politics, it ain't 2000 anymore!" The lower Court did a fine job, why does SCOTUS need to intervene? There are no challenges outside of Ohio, and no inconsistent rulings. Although, in order to avoid hearing a case, six Judges must agree not to hear it - I wonder who the six were.

[Alien Space Bats]

Electoral-vote.com Map (as of October 16th, 2012)



Obama 277, Romney 239 (22 Undecided)

---

PLEASE NOTE: SOME NEW POLLS DO NOT YET REFLECT REACTION TO THE VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE.

---

Eight new polls are out today:

• In Florida (29 EV's), a new poll by PPP dated October 14th shows Romney leading by 1%; averaging this poll with four others taken within a one-week look-back window (by ARG, Rasmussen, Mason Dixon, and Marist College) leaves the former Massachusetts Governor with a net lead of 2%. The Sunshine State remains "Barely Republican".
  
  
• In Virginia (13 EV's), a new poll by ARG dated October 14th shows Romney up by 1%; averaging this poll with four others taken within a one-week look-back window (by Rasmussen, Marist College, Quinnipiac University, and Pulse Opinion Research) leaves the two candidates locked in a dead heat. Old Dominion slides from "Barely Democratic" to "Exactly Tied".
  
  
• In Iowa (6 EV's), a new poll by ARG dated October 14th shows Obama and Romney dead even; averaging this poll with Rasmussen's poll from October 7th gives President Obama a net lead of 1%. The Hawkeye State remains "Barely Democratic".
  
  
• In North Carolina (15 EV's), a new poll by PPP dated October 14th shows Romney up by 2%; averaging this poll with Rasmussen's poll from October 9th confirms this 2% lead for the former Massachusetts Governor. For some undisclosed reason, Tanenbaum doesn't average in the High Point University poll from October 10th, which is within the same one-week look-back window; if that poll were added to the average, Romney's net lead would be sliced to just 1%. The Tarheel State remains "Barely Republican".
  
  
• In New Hampshire (4 EV's), a new poll by Suffolk University dated October 14th shows Romney leading by 4%; averaging this poll with two others taken within a one-week look-back window (by ARG and Rasmussen) gives the Governor Romney a net lead of 1%. The Granite State remains "Barely Republican".
  
  
• In Pennsylvania (20 EV's), two new polls (one PPP and one by Muhlenberg College, both dated October 14th) show Obama up by an average of 5%; comparing these with two others taken within a one-week look-back window (by Global Strategy and Pulse Opinion Research) confirms this same 5% lead for the President. The Keystone State remains "Likely Democratic".
  
  
• In South Dakota (3 EV's), a new Nielson Brothers poll dated October 5th shows Romney leading by 11%. The Mount Rushmore State remains "Strongly Republican".

Tommorow's report should contain several more polls from over the weekend; it will likely give us the best picture we're going to have of the state of the Nation on the eve of the second Presidential debate.

---

Compare these two maps:

Electoral-vote.com Map (as of October 5th, 2012)



Obama 332, Romney 206

Electoral-vote.com Map (as of October 13th, 2012)



Obama 290, Romney 239 (9 Undecided)

The difference between them essentially represents the effects of Governor Romney's bump from the first Presidential debate. For all of the movement in the National opinion polls, the effect on the Electoral College map is actually quite small - although it's hardly insignificant. Nevada, Wisconsin, Ohio, and New Hampshire are all brought back from the brink of being locked up by the President; Florida is flipped and Colorado becomes a toss-up in the process.

For all the talk we've heard, you'd think the effect would have been greater, but this is what happens when the Electoral College map is as "sticky" as it is due to political polarization. That said, the debate was still important: If Governor Romney hadn't won, this race would be all but over by now.

It may still be over; President Obama still has the easier route back to the White House, and time is running out for his adversary. The General Election will be held in just three weeks, and while two debates, another jobs report, and the GOP's planned "ad blitz" will all occur within this same three week period, early voting is locking in Obama's Electoral College edge more and more with every passing day.

"Team Obama's" path to victory is simple: Win the so-called "Kerry" States - including Wisconsin - for 242 EV's. Add New Mexico and Ohio for another 23 EV's, bringing that total up to 265 EV's. Then add any single State other than New Hampshire, with Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Virginia, and Florida offering the best possibilities for this all-important win to take you over 270 EV's and back to the White House.

"Team Romney's" path is much harder. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if Governor Romney wins the White House, he'll become the first Republican ever to win it without Ohio; my feelings are that early voting will wrap up the Buckeye State for the Democrats before November 6th. If I'm right, Romney's path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue looks something like this: Win the so-called "McCain" States for 180 EV's. Add Indiana and North Carolina for another 26 EV's, bringing that total up to 206 EV's. Then add Florida, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and Colorado for another 52 EV's, bringing the former Massachusetts Governor's total up to 258 EV's. At this point, add either Virginia (for 13 EV's) or both Iowa and Nevada (for a total of 12 EV's) to reach the needed 270 EV's and the Presidency.

Both of these routes present challenges: Nevada's State Republican Party is a mess and controlled by Ron Paul supporters to boot; consequently, "Team Romney" can expect no local help in staging a "ground game" in the Silver State. That fact alone would make me favor the Virginia path, but here Virgil Goode's candidacy represents a potential soak-off challenge. OTOH, the Virginia State GOP apparatus is strong and the State is close, so I'd go that way if it were my call.

Assuming "Team Romney" can get Virginia into the bag, Iowa (6 EV's) becomes insurance against the loss of New Hampshire (4 EV's); neither is by any means certain, but both are winnable - and it's always better to have two ways to win than just one.

This, of course, assumes that Florida, Colorado, and Wisconsin are also in the bag - which means that Romney needs to raise his effort in each of these States. None will be easy wins, but all are possible for Romney.

Yet as bad as this prospect is, it was worse on the eve of the first Presidential Debate - so much so that if Romney does win the White House, everyone will say that he really won it that night in Denver more than any place else.

---

Let's talk about tonight's debate.

From the foregoing discussion, it's clear that Mitt Romney needs a boost coming out of the debate more than does Barack Obama. This turns the CW (conventional wisdom) on its head, in which a "desperate" President needs a victory to fend off his "surging" challenger. This is an election, not football; there's no "momentum". If it's like any American sport, it's like baseball, where each pitch, each hit, and each play is a self-contained event that affects the overall state of the contest; as such, whatever "momentuim" exists is really nothing more than a consequence of the pressure each candidate and his team feel based on the evolving situation.

The format generally favors the President, who is better at engaging with voters one-on-one. But Mitt Romney has lots of experience in town halls, so don't expect him to simply fall flat on his face; that's not likely to happen.

As New Chalcedon has pointed out, the moderator is the wild card: She knows the questions in advance and can choose to call upon the audience in whatever order she wishes; nor will every audience member be called. Another reason to expect the unexpected: CNN (Candy Crowley's network) has a history of sensationalism, especially in Presidential debates:

“Governor [Dukakis], if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?”

- Bernard Shaw (CNN), Second Presidential Debate, October 13th, 1988

In my book, this is a plus for Romney: Even CNN doesn't have the stones to make Mitt Romney's religion an issue, so there won't be questions about Mitt Romney's view of the separation of church and state (actually an issue worth exploring, given Joesph Smith's endorsement of Iranian-style "theodemocracy" as the best form of government and Mormon views of how the United States will become the legal foundation for the Kingdom of God described in Revelations), or about his charitable contributions to the Church of LDS. Crowley could, OTOH, ask Barack Obama about Rev. Wright, about his birth certificate, about Fast and Furious, or go down any number of rabbit-holes that could turn out bad for the President even if his answer is perfect.

For Mitt Romney, the goal of the debate should be to make President Obama look as bad as possible, with the focus on the President's performance in office; for Barack Obama, the goal of the debate should be to make Governor Romney look as bad as possible, with the focus being on honesty, trustworthiness, and willingess to level with the American people. At this stage, the key to winning this election are each candidate's positive/negative favorability ratings. Each man must try to get the other fellow's favorability rating below 50%, and preferably push their opponent into a "upside down" position, where their unfavorable rating exceeds their favorability.

This is especially important for Barack Obama: The CW says that undecided voters will break towards the challenger at the last minute; but if the challenger is "upside down", that logic may no longer hold.

[Inky Noodles]

I just realized how non-entertaining the debates are.
Last debate was funny, now it's just boring.
Fuck common sense!

Why don't we get some machete's and add some fun to the debate!?
(sarcasm)

Actually, this debate is interesting. I'll keep watching.

[Greed and Death]

I just realized how non-entertaining the debates are.
Last debate was funny, now it's just boring.
Fuck common sense!

Why don't we get some machete's and add some fun to the debate!?
(sarcasm)

Actually, this debate is interesting. I'll keep watching.

It was more interesting in person, every time the camera was focused on Obama, Romney was mooning Obama.

[New Chalcedon]

I just realized how non-entertaining the debates are.
Last debate was funny, now it's just boring.
Fuck common sense!

Why don't we get some machete's and add some fun to the debate!?
(sarcasm)

Actually, this debate is interesting. I'll keep watching.

It was more interesting in person, every time the camera was focused on Obama, Romney was mooning Obama.

Are you serious?

No, of course you're not serious. Not evne Romney would do that......surely?

[AiliailiA]

I just realized how non-entertaining the debates are.

That's not the thread subject. There are TWO stickied threads (always at the top of page 1 of General) where it would be more appropriate to comment on the presidential debates.

[Free Soviets]

so i've been trying to think about the proper way to deal with a debating opponent who flat out lies about everything, including what his own policy proposals say. i'm not sure there is one, other than simply stopping the debate entirely and declaring that it is impossible to debate such a person.

if i was obama, i would consider doing exactly that. and then maybe announcing that i would be scaling back the stump speeches and instead hosting a number of independently moderated townhall-esque events over the next few weeks covering individual narrow topics - one on the environment, one on the role of the military, etc. and mitt romney could feel free to lie to himself now. then i'd walk off stage.

well, i guess having the debate moderator say something about a ridiculous lie he is telling might help too.
i mean, come on, ouch.

also worth noting here is...what the fuck was romney thinking? i mean, he clearly thought he had totally 'caught' the president here. he obviously didn't. but why did he think he did? i mean, you don't try to pull that shit if you have any doubts at all about what he will say. well, the hermetically sealed conservative bubble is convinced that obama refused to call the assassination of our ambassador an act of terror, despite the fact that he repeatedly did. even with romney's strategy of casual lying about everything, that move only makes sense if romney actually believes the shit right-wing blogs say.

like with the 47% thing, here we seem to have another ridiculous result of inner party members who have started watching - and believing! - the prolefeed.

fox news, of course, has doubled down.

we've seen that lying and getting away with it can actually swing the polls pretty far. how about lying and getting called out for it live on teevee and having the audience laugh and clap about the smackdown?

[Shofercia]

It was more interesting in person, every time the camera was focused on Obama, Romney was mooning Obama.

Are you serious?

No, of course you're not serious. Not evne Romney would do that......surely?

It's G&D. He's got an interesting sense of humor

so i've been trying to think about the proper way to deal with a debating opponent who flat out lies about everything, including what his own policy proposals say. i'm not sure there is one, other than simply stopping the debate entirely and declaring that it is impossible to debate such a person.

if i was obama, i would consider doing exactly that. and then maybe announcing that i would be scaling back the stump speeches and instead hosting a number of independently moderated townhall-esque events over the next few weeks covering individual narrow topics - one on the environment, one on the role of the military, etc. and mitt romney could feel free to lie to himself now. then i'd walk off stage.

well, i guess having the debate moderator say something about a ridiculous lie he is telling might help too.
i mean, come on, ouch.

also worth noting here is...what the fuck was romney thinking? i mean, he clearly thought he had totally 'caught' the president here. he obviously didn't. but why did he think he did? i mean, you don't try to pull that shit if you have any doubts at all about what he will say. well, the hermetically sealed conservative bubble is convinced that obama refused to call the assassination of our ambassador an act of terror, despite the fact that he repeatedly did. even with romney's strategy of casual lying about everything, that move only makes sense if romney actually believes the shit right-wing blogs say.

like with the 47% thing, here we seem to have another ridiculous result of inner party members who have started watching - and believing! - the prolefeed.

fox news, of course, has doubled down.

we've seen that lying and getting away with it can actually swing the polls pretty far. how about lying and getting called out for it live on teevee and having the audience laugh and clap about the smackdown?

Wow. Initially, I thought it was going to be something controversial about Obama and Libya - and I was thinking "damn, Romney's intelligent enough to find a loophole" but no - Romney was talking about Benghazi attack, which Obama & Team called an act of terrorism. Of course now the Romney Team is spinning, claiming that Obama blamed the wrong person, which is... Romney, Romney, Romney - why?! Guys - just hang a giant "Vote for Obama" sticker on your back, right below "kick me!"

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10/16 ... -ca/190677

During tonight's presidential debate, moderator Candy Crowley corrected Mitt Romney's false claim that President Obama did not refer to the September 11 attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya as an act of terrorism the day after the attack.

Crowley was right, and Romney was wrong: In his September 12 remarks, the president said: "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America." Despite this, [the Romney Team] are insisting that Obama never said that.

"My opponent failed to call murder - murder! He's a murderer lover!"
"Actually, he, erm, called murder, a murder, he said - no act of murder will go unpunished, in reference to the murder!"
"Yeah, but he totally picked the wrong murderer! He said that it a Killer A who killed Victim, and autopsy clearly showed that it was Killer B, whom the President only blamed after the autopsy report!"
"Stop arguing against the facts Mitt, it's not helping you!"

Is Team Romney aware that the media tactics used in the Propaganda War about the Ossetian War didn't work out? Cause they're using the same bullshit tactics. BTW guys - I told ya that Romney would get creamed on foreign policy issues, and he did. That happens when, instead of realizing how foreign policy actually works, you pull the issues out of your ass.

An example of the spin: http://www.redstate.com/2012/10/17/pars ... ot-terror/

Many pixels are being tortured today on one of the most egregious exchanges in last night’s debate. The subject is the rather shameless and shameful lie told by Barack Obama on his deceitful conduct over these many days after the killing of our ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens. While CNN moderator Candy Crowley’s conduct was both egregious and shameful by acting as a willing accomplice to the lie, that is as surprising as discovering the sun rising in the east. She is, after all, the same person who deemed the Romney-Ryan ticket a “death wish.”

Pixels are tortured, Obama is both shameless, and shameful, and the moderator is ubah-ebul about pointing out the facts, which she'd clearly do cause she hates Ryan, and thus went after his partner, Romney!

What did Obama actually say in the Rose Garden.

Isn't that supposed to be a question?

First, he directly attributed the attack on the Benghazi to the ludicrous Mohammed video story, part of the now discredited Dezinformatsia campaign conceived by the White House to cover their complicity in this tragedy. You can watch his rambling, inane, and disjointed explanation in the video...

Alright, it's been a while since someone used a Russian term that they don't know jack shit about. Dezinformatsia is when you have an extreme majority of the truth, and you spin it to get away from the truth. Since, at the time of the speech Obama didn't know it was Al Qaeda that did it - he couldn't have engaged in Dezinformatsia. And what complicity? But, let's insult the ubah-ebul opponent some more, "inane, rambling, disjointed" - I'm shocked they didn't throw in unpatriotic, or Kenyan ubah-nationalist, cause hey, when you've got no facts, name calling on the level of a five year old is all that you're capable of. My apologies to the five year olds.

Saying this statement applies to Benghazi in any way is incomprehensible in light of what Obama was saying preceding it. Using the left’s logic, Obama could claim that he said Benghazi was a significant as 9/11/2001 (I don’t think we can ever refer to just 9/11 again after this year) because he does mention 9/11.

Oh yeah? How about this: "Both 9/11 and the Benghazi Attacks were things that could've been prevented had the leadership been more careful about foreign policy!" But hey, Obama mentioned 9/11, clearly he's got an agenda...

Anyways, back on topic: ASB - since we saw Romney catching Obama in the polls as a result of the first debate, which Romney won - is Obama expected to pull away a bit from Romney after winning the second debate?

[The Amyclae]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/ ... tates.html

So Obama is 'giving up' on NC, VA, FL and... Hope of a new realignment?

[Farnhamia]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/10/17/four_states.html

So Obama is 'giving up' on NC, VA, FL and... Hope of a new realignment?

We'll see what the polls say once the results of last night are factored in.

[The Amyclae]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/10/17/four_states.html

So Obama is 'giving up' on NC, VA, FL and... Hope of a new realignment?

We'll see what the polls say once the results of last night are factored in.

Do you think that the debate was 'that' decisive?

[Avenio]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/10/17/four_states.html

So Obama is 'giving up' on NC, VA, FL and... Hope of a new realignment?

This is fascinating. It's like a game of political 'telephone'.

an article about the post-debate political landscape from the views of both campaigns features a quote by a representative of the Obama campaign on Obama's lead in several swing states, which turns into a two-paragraph blurb about how the election apparently is down to those four states, which further turns into 'Obama abandons all of the other close state races'.

Bit sad, but fascinating regardless.

EDIT: Modified for clarity.

[The Amyclae]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/10/17/four_states.html

So Obama is 'giving up' on NC, VA, FL and... Hope of a new realignment?

This is fascinating. It's like political Chinese whispers.

an article about the post-debate political landscape from the views of both campaigns features a quote by a representative of the Obama campaign on Obama's lead in several swing states, which turns into a two-paragraph blurb about how the election apparently is down to those four states, which further turns into 'Obama abandons all of the other close state races'.

Bit sad, but fascinating regardless.

If you've been keeping up, a few other pollsters and analysts (like Suffolk) have already conceded the point a few days prior. CW, as well, points to a few predictors that point to Obama good campaign in those states but due to the EC he's not going to put too much more effort in it.

I think it's a bit more than Chinese whispers, and something to discuss.