Romney-Obama: Handicapping the Race

[The Emerald Dawn]

Edited by TED.

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.

Maybe something other than "Chinese Whispers" for the name of the game. Maybe, "Telephone" or "Grapevine" or "LOLthosechinksandtheirmoonlanguage".

[Avenio]

Maybe something other than "Chinese Whispers" for the name of the game. Maybe, "Telephone" or "Grapevine" or "LOLthosechinksandtheirmoonlanguage".

Edit en route.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Edit en route.

Muchas gracias.

[Cannot think of a name]

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.

Wait, so when Plouffe listed states where he felt they were solid, we infer that any state he doesn't think is solid is one they're going to give up on? That seems like a leap. It might just be that Plouffe is reading the same polls we are and didn't call states where they are struggling in states where he was solid.

[Alien Space Bats]

I don't think the statement indicates that "Team Obama" is "giving up" on Florida, Virginia, and Colorado (maybe North Carolina, but that's stll just "maybe" at this stage); rather, I think that "Team Obama" is building a "firewall".

I've been through the math several times in the last few days: If Obama wins the "Kerry" States (including Wisconsin) and New Mexico, that gives them 247 EV's; at that point, they only need 23 more EV's to win. At that point, a win in Ohio (18 EV's) takes them to 265 EV's, where Iowa (6 EV's) or Nevada (6 EV's) can then put them over the top.

Alternately, winning New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada (16 EV's in all) brings them to 263 EV's; at that point, any remaining "swing" State (Colorado, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, or Florida) wins them the race; they could even win with a "Hail Mary" in Missouri (10 EV's) or Arizona (11 EV's).

The point is that the recent erosion in the President's support (in the wake of his loss in the first Presidential Debate) has led him to think in terms of locking in a path to victory if he can, because right now "Team Obama" doesn't know how much mileage they'll get off last night's debate. It's only sensible to double down on enough "swing" States where the President's chances look good to ensure he goes into the election with the upper hand.

---

To me, the most important result from last night's debate is this: Just like a team can force a baseball series to a final game, Obama's performance forces this race to the final debate - and it's the one where the President has a natural advantage. This is the best result the President and his team could have hoped for: The race now comes down to next Tuesday's battle in Boca Raton, FL - and if the President wins, he'll have two full weeks for the "bounce" from that victory to blossom out into a winning lead.

---

Bob Schieffer of CBS News has announced the topics for next Tuesday's debate:

• America's role in the world
• Our longest war - Afghanistan and Pakistan
• Red Lines - Israel and Iran
• The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism - I
• The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism - II
• The Rise of China and Tomorrow's World

After watching the performances of Raddatz and Crowley - and hearing widespread criticism of Lehrer's performance, there will be tremendous pressure on Schieffer to make sure that he forces the candidates to stay within their time limits and make certain that as many of these subjects as possible get addressed.

[The Emerald Dawn]

I hate disagreeing with you ASB, because it makes me look three colors of fool, but Missouri wouldn't be a "Hail Mary", that'd be a Seahawks-Packers WHAT JUST HAPPENED refs giving them the win Gore v. Bush 2000 lolwut? impossibility.

[Cannot think of a name]

Bob Schieffer of CBS News has announced the topics for next Tuesday's debate:

• America's role in the world
• Our longest war - Afghanistan and Pakistan
• Red Lines - Israel and Iran
• The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism - I
• The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism - II
• The Rise of China and Tomorrow's World

After watching the performances of Raddatz and Crowley - and hearing widespread criticism of Lehrer's performance, there will be tremendous pressure on Schieffer to make sure that he forces the candidates to stay within their time limits and make certain that as many of these subjects as possible get addressed.

Wait, Romney agreed to the last debate being a foreign policy debate? Was he hoping no one would watch it or something?

[Quebec and Atlantic Canada]

I hate disagreeing with you ASB, because it makes me look three colors of fool, but Missouri wouldn't be a "Hail Mary", that'd be a Seahawks-Packers WHAT JUST HAPPENED refs giving them the win Gore v. Bush 2000 lolwut? impossibility.

Translation please.

[The Emerald Dawn]

I hate disagreeing with you ASB, because it makes me look three colors of fool, but Missouri wouldn't be a "Hail Mary", that'd be a Seahawks-Packers WHAT JUST HAPPENED refs giving them the win Gore v. Bush 2000 lolwut? impossibility.

Translation please.

Basically, the amount of chicanery required to get Missouri to go to Obama in this election is on par with the amount of failure the refs possessed when giving the Seahawks the win a few weeks ago. I was riffing off his "Hail Mary" statement.

[Shofercia]

[*]America's role in the world
[*]Our longest war - Afghanistan and Pakistan
[*]Red Lines - Israel and Iran
[*]The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism - I
[*]The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism - II
[*]The Rise of China and Tomorrow's World[/list]

Awww man, nothing on OMNT? (Aka Start II.) Damn, I was hoping for Romney to be baked

America's Role in the World - this one's tough, since most Americans still believe that "hurr durr, America Rulz Worldz, World Force Police All Da Way!" If I was Obama, I'd derail to OMNT - which, unlike Bush's Idiocy, actually helps the NNPP, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Policy. And then Romney will self-pwn

Israel and Iran - another thorny issue, because you can't piss off AIPAC, and yet you can't go "yeehaa, we're invadingz!" Drinking game suggestion: a shot every time one of the candidates says "all options are on the table"

Afghanistan and Pakistan - well this Obama should bag, cause he killed bin Laden, went after Al Qaeda, wasn't afraid to knock down Pakistan a few notches when the situation demanded it, and was kinda badass - doesn't America like that kind of stuff?

Middle East and New Face of Terrorism - oh boy. This could go either way.

China - Obama should have no trouble creaming Romney here.

So Obama's got 2 clear cut victories, 1 possible victory, 2 that could go either way, and one, Israel, where he'll have to be really careful. Should be an interesting debate. Romney must now win all four "swing" issues in order to win the debate, and Obama just needs two to win.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Another foreign policy debate. The moments in the last debate where Romney got absolutely cream corned were all around foreign policy, so this is going to be right in Obama's home field, and he understands how to throw Romney off center if the Libya Question was him setting a precedent.

[The Amyclae]

Another foreign policy debate. The moments in the last debate where Romney got absolutely cream corned were all around foreign policy, so this is going to be right in Obama's home field, and he understands how to throw Romney off center if the Libya Question was him setting a precedent.

It is interesting to note that, even derided, the foreign policy arguments of the best articulated neoconservative intellectuals are not only agreed upon by both candidates but one scores the most points when he follows their line most closely.

[Norstal]

Bob Schieffer of CBS News has announced the topics for next Tuesday's debate:

• America's role in the world
• Our longest war - Afghanistan and Pakistan
• Red Lines - Israel and Iran
• The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism - I
• The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism - II
• The Rise of China and Tomorrow's World

After watching the performances of Raddatz and Crowley - and hearing widespread criticism of Lehrer's performance, there will be tremendous pressure on Schieffer to make sure that he forces the candidates to stay within their time limits and make certain that as many of these subjects as possible get addressed.

Wait, Romney agreed to the last debate being a foreign policy debate? Was he hoping no one would watch it or something?

Ergh, "rise of China." The only thing China is rising in is inequality and pollution.

[Our Most Resplendent Goddess Sen]

The 25-fold increase in economic size over the last 30 years doesn't indicate a rise in power?

Pass me some of whatever you're smoking. Must be good shit.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Wait, Romney agreed to the last debate being a foreign policy debate? Was he hoping no one would watch it or something?

Ergh, "rise of China." The only thing China is rising in is inequality and pollution.

The "rise of China" would have been an appropriate topic for the 1992, 1996, and 2000 debates. Maybe stretching it in 2004. They've pretty much risen since then.

[Norstal]

The 25-fold increase in economic size over the last 30 years doesn't indicate a rise in power?

Pass me some of whatever you're smoking. Must be good shit.

See this:

The "rise of China" would have been an appropriate topic for the 1992, 1996, and 2000 debates. Maybe stretching it in 2004. They've pretty much risen since then.

They're not rising anymore. They're at the height of their power. This is like being scared of World War II in 1962.

[AiliailiA]

The 25-fold increase in economic size over the last 30 years doesn't indicate a rise in power?

Pass me some of whatever you're smoking. Must be good shit.

See this:

The "rise of China" would have been an appropriate topic for the 1992, 1996, and 2000 debates. Maybe stretching it in 2004. They've pretty much risen since then.

They're not rising anymore. They're at the height of their power.

Why? What limit have they hit?

This is like being scared of World War II in 1962.

I'd hope that both candidates have something more to say about China than "they're big and scary".

[New England and The Maritimes]

See this:


They're not rising anymore. They're at the height of their power.

Why? What limit have they hit?

I think it's mostly that "rise" implies they weren't previously in any kind of similar situation and it's a new thing. China being important was a new thing in 2000, and China being on the path to becoming important was a new thing in the 90s, but past that and the ship has sailed. It's the new normal for everyone who, unlike the Republican party it seems, is not stuck in the 80s.

[PapaJacky]

Why? What limit have they hit?

I think it's mostly that "rise" implies they weren't previously in any kind of similar situation and it's a new thing. China being important was a new thing in 2000, and China being on the path to becoming important was a new thing in the 90s, but past that and the ship has sailed. It's the new normal for everyone who, unlike the Republican party it seems, is not stuck in the 80s.

Not in terms of security. There's a bunch of defense-related topics regarding China that I can imagine being brought up. Obama's been pretty solid about defending "against" China, though, Romney's been loony for pretending that Russia's a bigger threat than China in the near future too.

[Free South Califas]

Wait, Romney agreed to the last debate being a foreign policy debate? Was he hoping no one would watch it or something?

Ergh, "rise of China." The only thing China is rising in is inequality and pollution.

And exporting neoliberal bullshit. Also, to be fair, they're well on track to beat Russia's record in Red Perfidy.

[Serrland]

To get this back on track and to return to the nuts and bolts of campaign strategy:

There was an interesting article by Keith Johnson on the Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire yesterday, in which he outlined the problems with both Obama and Romney's positions on coal and the role that the discussion of coal might play in the election (spoilered below).

President Barack Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney fought tooth and nail over energy policy in the second debate Tuesday night. While much of that focused on oil production, the role of coal in the energy mix made a heated appearance in the debate—and with good reason. Coal, whether as a source of mining jobs or electricity, is a big part of the economy in swing states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania.

David Roberts of Grist offers a nice look today at just how coal became so important in this year’s campaign.

Mr. Romney has long decried what he calls the Obama administration’s “war on coal,” highlighting new coal regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency and replaying 2008 comments Mr. Obama made about coal. He’s campaigned with coal miners and run ads of armies of hard hats. Tuesday night, he took the attack straight to Mr. Obama.

“This has not been Mr. Oil or Mr. Gas or Mr. Coal. Talk to the people that are working in those industries,” Mr. Romney said. “Coal production is not up, coal jobs are not up.”

Mr. Obama tried to turn the tables, reminding Mr. Romney that as governor of Massachusetts, he had been anti-coal himself. “When you were governor of Massachusetts, you stood in front of a coal plant and pointed at it and said, ‘This plant kills,’ and took great pride in shutting it down. And now suddenly you’re a big champion of coal,” he said. Mr. Obama then touted his support for “clean coal.”

There are bigger problems with the Romney campaign’s argument that the Obama administration is killing coal and reducing employment in the coal industry than charges of flip-flopping, though.

First, the main reason that coal as a source for electricity is in decline is because natural gas is abundant and cheap. This year so far, coal has produced 18% less electricity than last year; natural gas has produced 30% more. Cheap gas, not onerous environmental rules, is largely behind that switch.

Second, despite what Mr. Romney said, employment in the coal industry is not in free fall. Instead, coal mining jobs are at their highest level since 1995. Overall employment in the coal industry is also up in recent years—some 30% since 2004.

What has happened—and what matters on the campaign trail—is that coal jobs and coal production have slumped in the traditional eastern states such as Kentucky, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania, while output and employment has soared out West, especially in Wyoming.

That regional shift explains some of the coal industry’s resilience, even as coal loses favor as a source of electricity in the U.S. Countries such as China and India are gobbling up U.S. coal exports to power their own growing economies. In the short term, that’s providing a cushion for U.S. miners (and mining companies) and blunting the pain from the natural-gas boom.

In the longer term, though, countries such as China are finding that they can’t ignore the environmental consequences of burning ever-greater amounts of coal—and that’s why they are spending tens of billions of dollars to develop other sources of electricity. China, which alone accounts for half the world’s coal consumption, has pledged to get 15% of its electricity from non fossil-fuel sources by 2020. That kind of trend, rather than any particular environmental rule drafted in Washington, is what will put pressure on the coal industry in the future.

Coal country used to be an important region in elections. 1996 was the last time that the states in the heart of coal country - West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky - went for the same candidate. In 2012, that would represent 33 electoral college votes.

More interesting yet is that three swing states (and maybe four if you count Pennsylvania) produce more than 20,000 tons of coal annually (Ohio, Colorado, and Virginia - with Indiana (swung in 2008) and West Virginia (historically a swing state, but much less so now - since the reforms of 1972 it went blue five times and red five times) also showing up on the list).

Will coal country ever become a coveted region again, rather than being broke up into its individual parts, I wonder? Neither Romney nor Obama can do much more than pretend to be friends of coal - let's be honest, neither of them are. Yet Democrats - conservative democrats, like Gov. Manchin of West Virginia - are not an extinct species in these places. Perhaps there will be one last hurrah for coal country in the near future. But it would have to be 2016 or maybe 2020. I can't imagine the influence of coal will extend too far past that point.

[New England and The Maritimes]

To get this back on track and to return to the nuts and bolts of campaign strategy:

There was an interesting article by Keith Johnson on the Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire yesterday, in which he outlined the problems with both Obama and Romney's positions on coal and the role that the discussion of coal might play in the election (spoilered below).

President Barack Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney fought tooth and nail over energy policy in the second debate Tuesday night. While much of that focused on oil production, the role of coal in the energy mix made a heated appearance in the debate—and with good reason. Coal, whether as a source of mining jobs or electricity, is a big part of the economy in swing states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania.

David Roberts of Grist offers a nice look today at just how coal became so important in this year’s campaign.

Mr. Romney has long decried what he calls the Obama administration’s “war on coal,” highlighting new coal regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency and replaying 2008 comments Mr. Obama made about coal. He’s campaigned with coal miners and run ads of armies of hard hats. Tuesday night, he took the attack straight to Mr. Obama.

“This has not been Mr. Oil or Mr. Gas or Mr. Coal. Talk to the people that are working in those industries,” Mr. Romney said. “Coal production is not up, coal jobs are not up.”

Mr. Obama tried to turn the tables, reminding Mr. Romney that as governor of Massachusetts, he had been anti-coal himself. “When you were governor of Massachusetts, you stood in front of a coal plant and pointed at it and said, ‘This plant kills,’ and took great pride in shutting it down. And now suddenly you’re a big champion of coal,” he said. Mr. Obama then touted his support for “clean coal.”

There are bigger problems with the Romney campaign’s argument that the Obama administration is killing coal and reducing employment in the coal industry than charges of flip-flopping, though.

First, the main reason that coal as a source for electricity is in decline is because natural gas is abundant and cheap. This year so far, coal has produced 18% less electricity than last year; natural gas has produced 30% more. Cheap gas, not onerous environmental rules, is largely behind that switch.

Second, despite what Mr. Romney said, employment in the coal industry is not in free fall. Instead, coal mining jobs are at their highest level since 1995. Overall employment in the coal industry is also up in recent years—some 30% since 2004.

What has happened—and what matters on the campaign trail—is that coal jobs and coal production have slumped in the traditional eastern states such as Kentucky, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania, while output and employment has soared out West, especially in Wyoming.

That regional shift explains some of the coal industry’s resilience, even as coal loses favor as a source of electricity in the U.S. Countries such as China and India are gobbling up U.S. coal exports to power their own growing economies. In the short term, that’s providing a cushion for U.S. miners (and mining companies) and blunting the pain from the natural-gas boom.

In the longer term, though, countries such as China are finding that they can’t ignore the environmental consequences of burning ever-greater amounts of coal—and that’s why they are spending tens of billions of dollars to develop other sources of electricity. China, which alone accounts for half the world’s coal consumption, has pledged to get 15% of its electricity from non fossil-fuel sources by 2020. That kind of trend, rather than any particular environmental rule drafted in Washington, is what will put pressure on the coal industry in the future.

Coal country used to be an important region in elections. 1996 was the last time that the states in the heart of coal country - West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky - went for the same candidate. In 2012, that would represent 33 electoral college votes.

More interesting yet is that three swing states (and maybe four if you count Pennsylvania) produce more than 20,000 tons of coal annually (Ohio, Colorado, and Virginia - with Indiana (swung in 2008) and West Virginia (historically a swing state, but much less so now - since the reforms of 1972 it went blue five times and red five times) also showing up on the list).

Will coal country ever become a coveted region again, rather than being broke up into its individual parts, I wonder? Neither Romney nor Obama can do much more than pretend to be friends of coal - let's be honest, neither of them are. Yet Democrats - conservative democrats, like Gov. Manchin of West Virginia - are not an extinct species in these places. Perhaps there will be one last hurrah for coal country in the near future. But it would have to be 2016 or maybe 2020. I can't imagine the influence of coal will extend too far past that point.

Coal Country seems to be much more of a rural thing, and the states in question seem to all be overtaken by their respective urban centers, with the exception of WV and IN. PA has been completely dominated by Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Ohio is increasingly controlled by the north shore, especially the Cleveland Metro Area(causing its shift that I think has been fairly pronounced over the last 20 years,) and IL has been completely taken over by Chicago for a very, very long time.

Coal has the money for the time being, but the states in question seem to mostly revolve around urban centers that just don't give a damn, or are horrified by the mining industry and the pictures of removed mountain tops and 60 year coal fires.

[Serrland]

To get this back on track and to return to the nuts and bolts of campaign strategy:

There was an interesting article by Keith Johnson on the Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire yesterday, in which he outlined the problems with both Obama and Romney's positions on coal and the role that the discussion of coal might play in the election (spoilered below).

Coal country used to be an important region in elections. 1996 was the last time that the states in the heart of coal country - West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky - went for the same candidate. In 2012, that would represent 33 electoral college votes.

More interesting yet is that three swing states (and maybe four if you count Pennsylvania) produce more than 20,000 tons of coal annually (Ohio, Colorado, and Virginia - with Indiana (swung in 2008) and West Virginia (historically a swing state, but much less so now - since the reforms of 1972 it went blue five times and red five times) also showing up on the list).

Will coal country ever become a coveted region again, rather than being broke up into its individual parts, I wonder? Neither Romney nor Obama can do much more than pretend to be friends of coal - let's be honest, neither of them are. Yet Democrats - conservative democrats, like Gov. Manchin of West Virginia - are not an extinct species in these places. Perhaps there will be one last hurrah for coal country in the near future. But it would have to be 2016 or maybe 2020. I can't imagine the influence of coal will extend too far past that point.

Coal Country seems to be much more of a rural thing, and the states in question seem to all be overtaken by their respective urban centers, with the exception of WV and IN. PA has been completely dominated by Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Ohio is increasingly controlled by the north shore, especially the Cleveland Metro Area(causing its shift that I think has been fairly pronounced over the last 20 years,) and IL has been completely taken over by Chicago for a very, very long time.

Coal has the money for the time being, but the states in question seem to mostly revolve around urban centers that just don't give a damn, or are horrified by the mining industry and the pictures of removed mountain tops and 60 year coal fires.

Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati - all used to be heavy industry cities, and to some extent still are - which means they were tied to coal production. Cleveland's docks shipped coal throughout the Great Lakes and up the St. Lawrence for generations. Pittsburgh's reputation as Steel City depended very much on coal coming from Appalachia. So to some extent I'd agree with you in that continued urbanization has relegated coal country to a lesser role - but let's not entirely dismiss the role of coal in urban centers.

[Wikkiwallana]

I'm scared…

[Zaras]

since the reforms of 1972

What were those?