NATION

PASSWORD

Romney-Obama: Handicapping the Race

A resting-place for threads that might have otherwise been lost.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Alien Space Bats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10073
Founded: Sep 28, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: Romney-Obama: Handicapping the Race

Postby Alien Space Bats » Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:27 am

Electoral-vote.com Map (as of August 10th, 2012)

Image

Obama 323, Romney 206 (9 Undecided)



We have a whole slew of polls (10) today:

  • In Colorado (9 EV's), three new polls have been released, and they're all over the map. Quinnipiac University's August 6th poll shows Romney leading by 5%; PPP's August 5th poll shows Obama leading by 5%; and Rasmussen's August 6th poll shows the candidates dead even. The average of the three puts the race too close too call; the State moves from "Barely Democratic" to "Exactly Tied".

  • In Wisconsin (11 EV's), two new polls (one by Marquette Law School, dated August 5th, and one by Quinnipiac University, dated August 6th), show Obama up by an average of 6%. Interestingly, the two polls also both came in with almost the exact same results, confirming one another. The State slides from "Barely Democratic" to "Likely Democratic".

  • In Virginia (13 EV's), two new polls (one from Rasmussen, dated August 7th, and one from Quinnipiac, dated August 6th), show Obama leading Romney by an average of 3%. The President's lead in Virginia, while narrow, still appears steady. The State remains "Barely Democratic".

  • In North Carolina (15 EV's), a new poll by PPP, dated August 5th, shows Obama leading by 3%; this contradicts the August 1st Rasmussen poll which had Romney leading by 5% (and thus beginning to lock the State up for the GOP). For now, the Tarheel State remains in play; with a net average 1% lead by Romney between the two polls, North Carolina reverts from "Likely Republican" to "Barely Republican".

  • In South Dakota (3 EV's), a July 23rd poll by Nielsen Brothers shows Romney leading by 6%; this represents a slight narrowing of the race from the last Nielsen Brothers poll back in February, in which Romney led by 9%. The State remains "Likely Republican".

  • In Georgia (16 EV's), a July 23rd poll by Insider Advantage shows Romney leading by 9%; this also represents a slight narrowing of the race from the previous poll (also by Insider Advantage), taken back in late May. The State shifts from "Strongly Republican" to "Likely Republican".
On the whole, the news is basically "No news": IOW, the political map remains static, largely unchanged from where it was a month ago:

Image

Obama 326, Romney 212

Essentially, two States have switched sides: Colorado (9 EV's) leaving President Obama's camp to become a toss-up, and Iowa (6 EV's) flipping from Governor Romney's camp to the President's. Beyond that, several States have shifted in the intensity of their support for their preferred candidate, but few of the changes have been dramatic (the largest have been Indiana's 10-point shift towards Romney, followed by 9-point shifts towards the former Massachusetts Governor in New Mexico and Minnesota; in contrast, Obama has enjoyed a 6-point shift in his direction in Iowa, as well as several smaller shifts of 2-4% in his direction within several of the "battleground" States.

What's interesting is to compare where we stand today, just 88 days away from the election, to where we stood back in late April, when this thread began:

Image

Obama 290, Romney 215 (33 Undecided)

The map shown above was from 104 days ago (roughly 15 weeks); the astonishing thing is how little this map has changed in all that time. Arizona (11 EV's) has slid firmly into the Republican camp, as has Missouri (10 EV's), and - as mentioned above - Iowa (6 EV's) has flipped to the Democratic side; the Democrats have also tightened their grip on Michigan (16 EV's) and Pennsylvania (20 EV's). Virginia (13 EV's) and Florida (29 EV's) have shifted towards the Democrats as well, though not enough to make them secure; North Carolina (15 EV's) has shifted towards the GOP, but not enough to take it out of play, either. New Hampshire (4 EV's), OTOH, has drifted Republican and is now in play.

To be sure, most people don't think of the race as really beginning until Labor Day (although I've explained why that sort of thinking os severely outmoded - and seen the rapid pace of attacks by each side on the other these last few weeks prove my position in spades); thus it may seem a little hyperbolic to think of the current pre-Convention "hiatus" as the race's "half-time" (or "All-Star") break. Yet in past races, we've seen a lot of movement between the late spring, when the intra-Party races finally end up getting settled, and the dog days of summer, when the two Parties prepare for their conventions and the fur truly begings to fly. In my first post, I compared late spring results with the final ones. Now I should perhaps compare maps from this date four and eight years ago with their corresponding final results.

Let's start with 2004. The first map is that from August 6th, 88 days before the election; the second is from November 5th, when all of the votes from the November 2nd election had been counted, and the results were official:

Image

Image

The August 6th map was off from the final result by quite a bit, as the slide Kerry underwent as he got "Swift Boated" was still not complete, as well as the fact that the Democrats had just finished their Convention two weeks earlier and therefore their candidate was still enjoying his post-Convention "bounce". Yet look closely at the two maps: While Bush gained or held his ground almost everywhere across the map (Ohio being the sole exception), no State flipped unless the two candidates were less than 5% apart in the August 6th analysis. George W. Bush may well have swung four States (New Mexico, Missouri, Iowa, and West Virginia) worth a total of 28 EV's into his camp, but all were at least in close contention back in the "dog days" of August.

Now let's look at 2008. The first map is from August 8th, (once more) 88 days before the election; the second is from November 20th, when all of the votes from the November 4th election had been counted, and the results were official (it took a long time to confirm that McCain had, in fact, won Missouri by a whisker):

Image

Image

The striking thing here is the shift in color intensity, with both "Red" and "Blue" States "darkening" as they swung towards their preferred Parties; yet more interesting is a near-continuation of the trend we saw in 2004: With one exception, no State flipped unless the two candidates were less than 5% apart in the earlier (in this case, August 8th) analysis.

In his final tally, Obama managed to flip Ohio (20 EV's) and North Carolina (15 EV's) from McCain's camp to his; he also grabbed Virginia (13 EV's), which had been a toss-up in early August; he even grabbed the single EV for Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District (which is why Nebraska is now a winner-take-all State agains). The big score, however, was Florida (27 EV's). where Obama swung the State a whopping 9% (he trailed by 6% in Tanebaum's August 8th calculation, but won by 3% in the final tally).

The moral of this story? Well, while it's dangerous to rely on past history - especially when past history is just the last two elections - it seems unlikely that either candidate can really count on swinging any State where his opponent leads by 5% or more (which is essentially the maximum margin of error in the typical Presidential poll). With a lot of effort, a lot of money, and a huge amount of momentum, however, anything is possible.

That brings us back to the importance of outside events: Just as the Crash of '08 profoundly affected the outcome of the 2008 Presidential Election, a major national event of similar importance could still swing this race either way. But barring such an event (or some huge groundswell of support), Governor Romney is in serious trouble. If he is limited to only those States where Obama's lead is less that 5%, then the most he can hope for at this point is to tip Virginia (13 EV's), Florida (29 EV's), New Hampshire (4 EV's), and Colorado (9 EV's) his way - all of which would still leave him losing the race by a 277-261 count.

Tanenbaum's Tipping Point Table displays this very, very clearly. Look at where the tipping point lies to put Mitt Romney over the top: He has to reach into Obama territory and snag at least two of the three States (Iowa [6 EV's], Nevada [6 EV's], and New Mexico [5 EV's]) where Obama now leads by 5% in the State polls. That kind of swing is only going to happen if there's an even broader national surge on Romney's part - and he's only got 12½ weeks to put such a surge together.
"These states are just saying 'Yes, I used to beat my girlfriend, but I haven't since the restraining order, so we don't need it anymore.'" — Stephen Colbert, Comedian, on Shelby County v. Holder

"Do you see how policing blacks by the presumption of guilt and policing whites by the presumption of innocence is a self-reinforcing mechanism?" — Touré Neblett, MSNBC Commentator and Social Critic

"You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in."Songwriter Oscar Brown in 1963, foretelling the election of Donald J. Trump

President Donald J. Trump: Working Tirelessly to Make Russia Great Again

User avatar
Alien Space Bats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10073
Founded: Sep 28, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: Romney-Obama: Handicapping the Race

Postby Alien Space Bats » Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:39 am

New England and The Maritimes wrote:
The Nuclear Fist wrote:He has the charisma of a damp rag and is easily agitated. Obama has more charisma than a thousand of Mitt Romney. He'll wipe the floor with him.


I can't wait for the debates. Romney is going to look like a slow child.

I disagree. The debates could be crucial because neither candidate has a huge advantage.

Romney did reasonably well in the GOP debates; he certainly got better as they went along. He's sharp and relatively quick on his feet, as is the President.

Yet there's opportunity for a faux pas on the part of either candidate, and - most importantly of all - the "expectations game" won't be working in favor of either one of them.

Usually the candidate who is widely recognized as the poorer debater gets a perverse advantage due to the expectation that he's going to get his ass whipped; that means that he can "win" the debates by simply avoiding calamity. This year (as of yet) neither man is rated as a "certain loser", so nobody's going to walk in with an "expectations handicap".

The two key debates will be the first and last. The domestic policy debate on October 6th will come the day after the U.S. Department of Labor releases its September unemployment figures, so Romney is obviously hoping he can turn that debate into a chance to savage the President on his jobs record; the foreign policy debate on October 22nd comes just two weeks before the election and has the potential to leave the freshest impression in the minds of voters, so Obama is obviously going to use that opportunity to depict Romney as a man unsuited to serve as America's Head of State and Commander-in-Chief. The middle debates will likely prove to be of far less significance, in that the only thing to ever come from a Vice-Presidential debate is a severe misstep that calls a candidate's choice into question, and the town hall format of the third debate doesn't lend itself to surprises of any kind.

So I think the debates probably will matter - and I don't see them as a cake-walk for Obama.
"These states are just saying 'Yes, I used to beat my girlfriend, but I haven't since the restraining order, so we don't need it anymore.'" — Stephen Colbert, Comedian, on Shelby County v. Holder

"Do you see how policing blacks by the presumption of guilt and policing whites by the presumption of innocence is a self-reinforcing mechanism?" — Touré Neblett, MSNBC Commentator and Social Critic

"You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in."Songwriter Oscar Brown in 1963, foretelling the election of Donald J. Trump

President Donald J. Trump: Working Tirelessly to Make Russia Great Again

User avatar
Khadgar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11006
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Khadgar » Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:59 am

Depends on the format of the debate really. I think in an actual debate Romney would get his ass kicked, if only because his history is rather hostile to his current chosen characterization of himself. If it's just each candidate blathering for an hour or so unchallenged he'll likely do well.

User avatar
Ashmoria
Post Czar
 
Posts: 46718
Founded: Mar 19, 2004
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Ashmoria » Fri Aug 10, 2012 12:02 pm

Alien Space Bats wrote:
New England and The Maritimes wrote:
I can't wait for the debates. Romney is going to look like a slow child.

I disagree. The debates could be crucial because neither candidate has a huge advantage.

Romney did reasonably well in the GOP debates; he certainly got better as they went along. He's sharp and relatively quick on his feet, as is the President.

Yet there's opportunity for a faux pas on the part of either candidate, and - most importantly of all - the "expectations game" won't be working in favor of either one of them.

Usually the candidate who is widely recognized as the poorer debater gets a perverse advantage due to the expectation that he's going to get his ass whipped; that means that he can "win" the debates by simply avoiding calamity. This year (as of yet) neither man is rated as a "certain loser", so nobody's going to walk in with an "expectations handicap".

The two key debates will be the first and last. The domestic policy debate on October 6th will come the day after the U.S. Department of Labor releases its September unemployment figures, so Romney is obviously hoping he can turn that debate into a chance to savage the President on his jobs record; the foreign policy debate on October 22nd comes just two weeks before the election and has the potential to leave the freshest impression in the minds of voters, so Obama is obviously going to use that opportunity to depict Romney as a man unsuited to serve as America's Head of State and Commander-in-Chief. The middle debates will likely prove to be of far less significance, in that the only thing to ever come from a Vice-Presidential debate is a severe misstep that calls a candidate's choice into question, and the town hall format of the third debate doesn't lend itself to surprises of any kind.

So I think the debates probably will matter - and I don't see them as a cake-walk for Obama.


romney did get better in the republican debate marathon but he was never challenged by a good opponent. and never had to do one of them one-on-one.

i am hoping he and his staff are deluded by the common republican notion that the president is a know-nothing who can only speak well with a teleprompter. that might cause him to underprepare.

obama hasnt done one of these for 4 years. lets hope HE isnt deluded by the notion that romney is too stiff and awkward to ever do well in a one-on-one debate. he needs to prepare this time at least as well as he did last time.
whatever

User avatar
Jocabia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5273
Founded: Mar 25, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Jocabia » Fri Aug 10, 2012 1:11 pm

Alien Space Bats wrote:What's interesting is to compare where we stand today, just 88 days away from the election, to where we stood back in late April, when this thread began:

Well, if you go even further back, here is my prediction from Feb 01. I was kind of just playing around trying to see how far out I could predict the election, but the fact is the changes in this race are almost non-existent.

viewtopic.php?p=8339058#p8339058

I did a comparison of my prediction to what you have everything at right now.

CO: You have this tied. I gave this to Romney because it's a prediction, but my statement at the time "Given the disappointment many liberals have with Obama, I think enough will stay home for this to end up in Romney’s column, but I wouldn’t bet on it." In other words, if I HAVE to guess, I'll take Romney there, but you couldn't get me to make a bet on that. Now, 6 months later, it's in exactly the same place.

VA: You have this as barely Dem and I gave this to Romney.


After six months, the only differences between what one could see from things (before there was even a nominee) and what we see now is that one state is more in play than I suggested it was and it's leaning Dem.

Romney while fighting for the nomination was doing almost exactly the same as Romney with his party behind him and his ads and campaign actually focused on Obama. That's really bad news for the Romney camp.
Last edited by Jocabia on Fri Aug 10, 2012 1:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sgt Toomey wrote:Come to think of it, it would make more sense to hate him for being black. At least its half true..
JJ Place wrote:Sure, the statistics are that a gun is more likely to harm a family member than a criminal

User avatar
Wikkiwallana
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22500
Founded: Mar 21, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Wikkiwallana » Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:07 pm

Alien Space Bats wrote: Proving itself to be the most unconsciously self-referential political campaign in history, Romney's Boston team chose to launch their big attack in such a way as to point up Mitt Romney's own greatest weakness: His flexible relationship with the truth.

I thought Mitt's greatest weakness was his flexible relationship with himself…
Proud Scalawag and Statist!

Please don't confuse my country for my politics; my country is being run as a parody, my posts aren't.
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Halt!
Just because these people are stupid, wrong and highly dangerous does not mean you have the right to make them feel sad.
Xenohumanity wrote:
Nulono wrote:Snip
I'm a pro-lifer who runs a nation of dragon-men...
And even I think that's stupid.
Avenio wrote:Just so you know, the use of the term 'sheep' 'sheeple' or any other herd animal-based terminology in conjunction with an exhortation to 'think outside the box' or stop going along with groupthink generally indicates that the speaker is actually more closed-minded on the subject than the people that he/she is addressing. At least, in my experience at least.

User avatar
Aryavartha
Diplomat
 
Posts: 732
Founded: Jan 16, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Aryavartha » Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:03 pm

Ashmoria wrote:romney did get better in the republican debate marathon but he was never challenged by a good opponent. and never had to do one of them one-on-one.

i am hoping he and his staff are deluded by the common republican notion that the president is a know-nothing who can only speak well with a teleprompter. that might cause him to underprepare.

obama hasnt done one of these for 4 years. lets hope HE isnt deluded by the notion that romney is too stiff and awkward to ever do well in a one-on-one debate. he needs to prepare this time at least as well as he did last time.


But Obama has been attacked consistently in the most vile form ever since he became Prez. Whatever Romney throws at him won't be new or worse than that. He won't get ruffled. From what I can recollect, the few times Romney was pushed he got all "how dare you ask me that, you can't ask me that" sort of indignation - which may work with his fellow republicans but not with Obama, who will only smell blood.
Last edited by Aryavartha on Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Telesha
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 462
Founded: Apr 17, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Telesha » Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:56 pm

Welp, cat's out of the bag:

Mitt Romney Set to Pick Paul Ryan as Running Mate

I'm only seeing the logic in this as an attempt to appease the far-right. Romney is already getting pounded on his "plan" (now simplified for our benefit!) and now he's bringing in the Ryan Budget?

I just have to wonder if it might have been a better idea to just go with the "old, white dude" that the Republicans (and Democrats) are so famous for. At least that might get shrugged off with a "What do you expect? It's the GOP!"
Last edited by Telesha on Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
New England and The Maritimes
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28872
Founded: Aug 13, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby New England and The Maritimes » Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:01 pm

Told you it wouldn't be Rubio.

Paul Ryan... wow... he's going to sink much harder than anyone expected for this. He couldn't have picked Portman for the Ohio bump?
All aboard the Love Train. Choo Choo, honeybears. I am Ininiwiyaw Rocopurr:Get in my bed, you perfect human being.
Yesterday's just a memory

Soviet Haaregrad wrote:Some people's opinions are based on rational observations, others base theirs on imaginative thinking. The reality-based community ought not to waste it's time refuting delusions.

Also, Bonobos
Formerly Brandenburg-Altmark Me.

User avatar
Wamitoria
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18852
Founded: Jun 28, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Wamitoria » Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:02 pm

New England and The Maritimes wrote:Told you it wouldn't be Rubio.

Paul Ryan... wow... he's going to sink much harder than anyone expected for this. He couldn't have picked Portman for the Ohio bump?

They probably had internal polling that any possible Ohio bump was negligible.
Wonder where all the good posters went? Look no further!

Hurry, before the Summer Nazis show up again!

User avatar
Telesha
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 462
Founded: Apr 17, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Telesha » Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:04 pm

Wamitoria wrote:
New England and The Maritimes wrote:Told you it wouldn't be Rubio.

Paul Ryan... wow... he's going to sink much harder than anyone expected for this. He couldn't have picked Portman for the Ohio bump?

They probably had internal polling that any possible Ohio bump was negligible.


Isn't pretty much any VP bump pretty negligible, though? I remember reading earlier in this thread that it usually only amounts to about 2 or 3 percent.

This has got to be just a way to try and get some turnout numbers. If they won't get excited and get out to vote for Romney, maybe they will for Ryan.

User avatar
Wamitoria
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18852
Founded: Jun 28, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Wamitoria » Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:06 pm

Telesha wrote:This has got to be just a way to try and get some turnout numbers. If they won't get excited and get out to vote for Romney, maybe they will for Ryan.

Remember when everyone was saying this about McCain and Palin? Anyone?

I'm getting serious deja vu.
Wonder where all the good posters went? Look no further!

Hurry, before the Summer Nazis show up again!

User avatar
New England and The Maritimes
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28872
Founded: Aug 13, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby New England and The Maritimes » Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:07 pm

Telesha wrote:
Wamitoria wrote:They probably had internal polling that any possible Ohio bump was negligible.


Isn't pretty much any VP bump pretty negligible, though? I remember reading earlier in this thread that it usually only amounts to about 2 or 3 percent.

This has got to be just a way to try and get some turnout numbers. If they won't get excited and get out to vote for Romney, maybe they will for Ryan.


The key to any move is to make sure it mobilizes your base more than it mobilizes the opponent's base. We remember the Ryan Plan. Republicans got spit on by their own constituents for backing it. Democrats were up in arms over it. Ryan is not a good pick, and I wonder if Romney might have had one too many root beers before picking him.
All aboard the Love Train. Choo Choo, honeybears. I am Ininiwiyaw Rocopurr:Get in my bed, you perfect human being.
Yesterday's just a memory

Soviet Haaregrad wrote:Some people's opinions are based on rational observations, others base theirs on imaginative thinking. The reality-based community ought not to waste it's time refuting delusions.

Also, Bonobos
Formerly Brandenburg-Altmark Me.

User avatar
Telesha
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 462
Founded: Apr 17, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Telesha » Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:11 pm

Wamitoria wrote:Remember when everyone was saying this about McCain and Palin? Anyone?

I'm getting serious deja vu.


You too, eh?

New England and The Maritimes wrote:The key to any move is to make sure it mobilizes your base more than it mobilizes the opponent's base. We remember the Ryan Plan. Republicans got spit on by their own constituents for backing it. Democrats were up in arms over it. Ryan is not a good pick, and I wonder if Romney might have had one too many root beers before picking him.


Maybe it really is a false leak (I doubt it).

I'm with you, I just can't see this as a good idea for Romney. I'm sure they're thinking that they can just downplay everything or sweep it away, but I'm also sure Obama's team is salivating right now just waiting to tear into a fresh Ryan steak...

User avatar
Brewdomia
Senator
 
Posts: 4222
Founded: Jun 26, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Brewdomia » Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:16 pm

Anyone see a possibility that if The Romney-Ryan plan is hit hard enough by the Dems, we could see a lot more house races put in play?

User avatar
Maurepas
Post Czar
 
Posts: 36403
Founded: Apr 17, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Maurepas » Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:20 pm

Telesha wrote:
Wamitoria wrote:They probably had internal polling that any possible Ohio bump was negligible.


Isn't pretty much any VP bump pretty negligible, though? I remember reading earlier in this thread that it usually only amounts to about 2 or 3 percent.

This has got to be just a way to try and get some turnout numbers. If they won't get excited and get out to vote for Romney, maybe they will for Ryan.

I don't think the VP bump is negligible at all. It's just not a bump for the person who picked the VP, it's bump for his opponent.

Sarah Palin pretty well sank McCain's campaign single-handedly. Ryan will bring Mitt down in the same way.

And further, to a lesser extent, the many gaffes of Joe Biden provided fuel to the McCain campaign.

User avatar
Wamitoria
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18852
Founded: Jun 28, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Wamitoria » Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:20 pm

Brewdomia wrote:Anyone see a possibility that if The Romney-Ryan plan is hit hard enough by the Dems, we could see a lot more house races put in play?

The Republicans lost a safe seat in 2011 because of the Ryan budget. The Democrats can definitely put A TON of them into play in November. More than 75, even, if they play their cards right.
Wonder where all the good posters went? Look no further!

Hurry, before the Summer Nazis show up again!

User avatar
Tmutarakhan
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8360
Founded: Dec 06, 2007
New York Times Democracy

Postby Tmutarakhan » Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:54 pm

New England and The Maritimes wrote:
Telesha wrote:
Isn't pretty much any VP bump pretty negligible, though? I remember reading earlier in this thread that it usually only amounts to about 2 or 3 percent.

This has got to be just a way to try and get some turnout numbers. If they won't get excited and get out to vote for Romney, maybe they will for Ryan.


The key to any move is to make sure it mobilizes your base more than it mobilizes the opponent's base. We remember the Ryan Plan. Republicans got spit on by their own constituents for backing it. Democrats were up in arms over it. Ryan is not a good pick, and I wonder if Romney might have had one too many root beers before picking him.

Nemmy, you're in Florida IIRC. How angry are the seniors going to be? How disappointed are the Cubans going to be? Does this put Florida into the Safe Obama column? If so, there's really nothing that can make up for that.
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, a comedy to those who think, and a musical to those who sing.

I am the very model of a Nation States General,
I am a holy terror to apologists Confederal,
When called upon to source a line, I give citations textual,
And argue about Palestine, and marriage homosexual!


A KNIGHT ON KARINZISTAN'S SPECIAL LIST OF POOPHEADS!

User avatar
New England and The Maritimes
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28872
Founded: Aug 13, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby New England and The Maritimes » Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:57 pm

Tmutarakhan wrote:
New England and The Maritimes wrote:
The key to any move is to make sure it mobilizes your base more than it mobilizes the opponent's base. We remember the Ryan Plan. Republicans got spit on by their own constituents for backing it. Democrats were up in arms over it. Ryan is not a good pick, and I wonder if Romney might have had one too many root beers before picking him.

Nemmy, you're in Florida IIRC. How angry are the seniors going to be? How disappointed are the Cubans going to be? Does this put Florida into the Safe Obama column? If so, there's really nothing that can make up for that.


Depends on if they remember. This is the state that voted for Rubio, remember. Voter ID laws are as crushing here as they are in the rest of the states where the GOP has completely destroyed any semblance of democracy.

If Obama can hammer home what Ryan represents, registered democrats outnumber registered republicans 2-1 in most areas. If they get out the vote and remind people that the social security and medicare that's keeping them alive will be at risk on the Romney-Ryan ticket, they'll probably find some huge swings.

It's all down to how effectively the Obama campaign can send that message in Orlando and especially down around Boca.
All aboard the Love Train. Choo Choo, honeybears. I am Ininiwiyaw Rocopurr:Get in my bed, you perfect human being.
Yesterday's just a memory

Soviet Haaregrad wrote:Some people's opinions are based on rational observations, others base theirs on imaginative thinking. The reality-based community ought not to waste it's time refuting delusions.

Also, Bonobos
Formerly Brandenburg-Altmark Me.

User avatar
Alien Space Bats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10073
Founded: Sep 28, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: Romney-Obama: Handicapping the Race

Postby Alien Space Bats » Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:05 am

New England and The Maritimes wrote:Told you it wouldn't be Rubio.

Paul Ryan... wow... he's going to sink much harder than anyone expected for this. He couldn't have picked Portman for the Ohio bump?

The funny thing is that, in spite of Portman's supposed popularity in Ohio, polling has never shown that his presence would do anything to help Romney win the State. Three months ago, a Quinnipiac University poll showed that adding Portman to the ticket wouldn't move the needle at all; two weeks ago, PPP found that adding Portman actually hurt Romney by 1%(!).

I'm not sure that I believe the latter poll in the most literal sense (i.e., that adding Portman to the GOP ticket would have actually hurt Mitt Romney), but if two polls taken three months apart show no effective difference between having Portman on the ballot and not having him there, then he's not a good choice.

There were also polls taken in other so-called "battleground" States (such as Florida) that suggested that Portman would either do the Romney ticket no good or actually hurt the ticket. Again, I'm not sure that those "hurt the ticket" polls should be taken seriously, but again, when a running mate isn't showing positive benefits, it's time to turn someplace else).

In contrast, a PPP poll publishing one month back showed that adding Ryan to the GOP ticket would cut Obama's lead in the Badger State by 5%, making it a battleground again almost overnight. I haven't seen data on what adding Ryan would do in Florida or Arizona, where the large retiree population might take issue with his plan to voucherize Medicare, however.

Brewdomia wrote:Anyone see a possibility that if The Romney-Ryan plan is hit hard enough by the Dems, we could see a lot more house races put in play?

Yes. The entire current Republican cast in both the House and the Senate has voted up the Ryan Plan on at least one occasion, so this opens up the possibility of making the GOP effort to slash voucherize Medicare and block grant Medicaid a bona-fide election issue across the board.
Last edited by Alien Space Bats on Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
"These states are just saying 'Yes, I used to beat my girlfriend, but I haven't since the restraining order, so we don't need it anymore.'" — Stephen Colbert, Comedian, on Shelby County v. Holder

"Do you see how policing blacks by the presumption of guilt and policing whites by the presumption of innocence is a self-reinforcing mechanism?" — Touré Neblett, MSNBC Commentator and Social Critic

"You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in."Songwriter Oscar Brown in 1963, foretelling the election of Donald J. Trump

President Donald J. Trump: Working Tirelessly to Make Russia Great Again

User avatar
Quebec and Atlantic Canada
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1098
Founded: Aug 07, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Quebec and Atlantic Canada » Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:11 am


...until Obama starts pounding the hell out of Romney over the Ryan Plan.

I'll bet the DNC will jump all over this to paint Mitt as a right-wing radical out of touch with the common American.

User avatar
Gauthier
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52887
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Gauthier » Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:47 am

Reposted from the Megathread:

Gauthier wrote:Two things.

One. Ryan being picked as VP is objective proof that Mitt Romney is politically spineless, as he bent over backwards to right wing pressure instead of going for someone like Marco Rubio. If Romney/Ryan gets the White House then Romney will indeed be Grover Norquist's bitch as well as the bitch of every hard right winger in existence.

Two. Picking Ryan as the VP pretty much gave the Senior Vote to the Obama campaign. As if Romney's out-of-touchness and questionable tax records weren't enough monkeys on the shoulders, now they get to hold up the notion that Paul Ryan's budget proposal wants to kick senior citizens to the curb in regards to health coverage.
Crimes committed by Muslims will be a pan-Islamic plot and proof of Islam's inherent evil. On the other hand crimes committed by non-Muslims will merely be the acts of loners who do not represent their belief system at all.
The probability of one's participation in homosexual acts is directly proportional to one's public disdain and disgust for homosexuals.
If a political figure makes an accusation of wrongdoing without evidence, odds are probable that the accuser or an associate thereof has in fact committed the very same act, possibly to a worse degree.
Where is your God-Emperor now?

User avatar
Wamitoria
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18852
Founded: Jun 28, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Wamitoria » Sat Aug 11, 2012 7:47 am


It won't last.
Wonder where all the good posters went? Look no further!

Hurry, before the Summer Nazis show up again!

User avatar
The House of Petain
Minister
 
Posts: 2277
Founded: Jun 19, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby The House of Petain » Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:11 am

Wamitoria wrote:

It won't last.


Not necessarily. Wisconsin has gone more right in the recent years.

That said, I think the Ryan choice was something of a surprise. If in his shoes, I personally would have gone with Rubio. But Ryan is difficult, he'll certainly help Romney with the base, but he may alienate some (or many) independents and he'll certainly rally the Democrats towards Obama. I will say whomever still believes there is no difference between the two candidates is a fool and that by voting for a third party out of anger against Obama for not being "left" enough, you'll give Ryan a chance of winning.

I also don't think the Democrats, even if Obama wins, will retake the House.
Michael Augustine I of the House of Petain

Founder, Chief Executive & Emperor of Westphalia
1000 Schloss Nordkirchen Ave, Munster Capitol District, Westphalia 59394

User avatar
Wamitoria
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18852
Founded: Jun 28, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Wamitoria » Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:18 am

The House of Petain wrote:
Wamitoria wrote:It won't last.


Not necessarily. Wisconsin has gone more right in the recent years.

Ryan's district went for Obama in '08.

The House of Petain wrote:I also don't think the Democrats, even if Obama wins, will retake the House.

The Democrats have a significantly higher chance of being able to do it now, though.
Wonder where all the good posters went? Look no further!

Hurry, before the Summer Nazis show up again!

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads