Romney-Obama: Handicapping the Race

[Farnhamia]

Who really thinks this was Romney's choice? This is him following the dictates of the party conservatives. They've been pushing him to pick Paul Ryan. Oh, Romney will tell you he decided at the beginning of the month but really, can you believe him? Anyway, he was put on notice back in April by House Republicans that they are in control.

... House Republicans said Mr. Romney could go his own way on smaller issues that may help define him as separate from his Congressional Republican counterparts. But, they said, he must understand that they are driving the policy agenda for the party now.

“We’re not a cheerleading squad,” said Representative Jeff Landry, an outspoken freshman from Louisiana. “We’re the conductor. We’re supposed to drive the train.”

Sounds like they want Paul Ryan to be Romney's Dick Cheney, the man really in charge when it comes down to the big things.

[The House of Petain]

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

Ryan's district went for Obama in '08.

2008 was a very long time ago. The Dems. also had membership advantages in nearly 30 states and that early on, it looked like they would even win more seats in the Senate in 2010. It didn't turn out that way.

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.

I'm still skeptical, especially considering how the new districts have been drawn.

[Ashmoria]

Who really thinks this was Romney's choice? This is him following the dictates of the party conservatives. They've been pushing him to pick Paul Ryan. Oh, Romney will tell you he decided at the beginning of the month but really, can you believe him? Anyway, he was put on notice back in April by House Republicans that they are in control.

... House Republicans said Mr. Romney could go his own way on smaller issues that may help define him as separate from his Congressional Republican counterparts. But, they said, he must understand that they are driving the policy agenda for the party now.

“We’re not a cheerleading squad,” said Representative Jeff Landry, an outspoken freshman from Louisiana. “We’re the conductor. We’re supposed to drive the train.”

Sounds like they want Paul Ryan to be Romney's Dick Cheney, the man really in charge when it comes down to the big things.

well, its not like the palin pick in '08. mccain had a man he very much wanted as his running mate--joe liebermann. he was forced into dropping liebermann and picked palin at the last minute as a kind of hailmary "fuck you" combo.

mitt doesnt have enough of a core to have a preference of running mate. on friday joe scarborough was talking about the romney's leaning toward a running mate that they would like to play bridge with (with pawlenty being the best bridge player). mitt may have been forced into paul ryan but it wasnt over his strong preference for someone else.

[Farnhamia]

Who really thinks this was Romney's choice? This is him following the dictates of the party conservatives. They've been pushing him to pick Paul Ryan. Oh, Romney will tell you he decided at the beginning of the month but really, can you believe him? Anyway, he was put on notice back in April by House Republicans that they are in control.


Sounds like they want Paul Ryan to be Romney's Dick Cheney, the man really in charge when it comes down to the big things.

well, its not like the palin pick in '08. mccain had a man he very much wanted as his running mate--joe liebermann. he was forced into dropping liebermann and picked palin at the last minute as a kind of hailmary "fuck you" combo.

mitt doesnt have enough of a core to have a preference of running mate. on friday joe scarborough was talking about the romney's leaning toward a running mate that they would like to play bridge with (with pawlenty being the best bridge player). mitt may have been forced into paul ryan but it wasnt over his strong preference for someone else.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply he very much wanted someone else and was forced to pick Ryan. What resistance he put up, if there was any, may have been purely to convince himself that he couldn't be pushed around, even while he was being pushed around.

[Ashmoria]

well, its not like the palin pick in '08. mccain had a man he very much wanted as his running mate--joe liebermann. he was forced into dropping liebermann and picked palin at the last minute as a kind of hailmary "fuck you" combo.

mitt doesnt have enough of a core to have a preference of running mate. on friday joe scarborough was talking about the romney's leaning toward a running mate that they would like to play bridge with (with pawlenty being the best bridge player). mitt may have been forced into paul ryan but it wasnt over his strong preference for someone else.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply he very much wanted someone else and was forced to pick Ryan. What resistance he put up, if there was any, may have been purely to convince himself that he couldn't be pushed around, even while he was being pushed around.

it continues to be that mitt romney has only one core principle that he is willing to stand utterly firm on--the privacy of his tax returns.

[Wamitoria]

This is a weird question, but since when did the media get it in their heads that somehow the GOP ran on the Ryan budget in '10?

[Farnhamia]

This is a weird question, but since when did the media get it in their heads that somehow the GOP ran on the Ryan budget in '10?

Because they kind of did? That plus "We hatessssss Obama, we hatesssssss him forever! Gollum!"

[Wamitoria]

This is a weird question, but since when did the media get it in their heads that somehow the GOP ran on the Ryan budget in '10?

Because they kind of did? That plus "We hatessssss Obama, we hatesssssss him forever! Gollum!"

I didn't see a single ad about it during the entire election. And I live in Indiana, which had a lot of seats flip.

[New Chalcedon]

This is a weird question, but since when did the media get it in their heads that somehow the GOP ran on the Ryan budget in '10?

Perhaps because the House GOP voted for it 193-4, and the Senate GOP voted for it 40-5?

Perhaps because after pushing it, he's still the House Budget Committee chair, or perhaps because the Republican Party again submitted it in 2012 for FY 2013?

They're sticking with it, they voted for it, and they're still pushing it to this day: it's their budget now, not just his.

Having said that, I really think this should go no further: this thread isn't about policy merits (as noted by ASB earlier), it's about the mechanics of the Presidential election, and of other elections.

[Wamitoria]

This is a weird question, but since when did the media get it in their heads that somehow the GOP ran on the Ryan budget in '10?

Perhaps because the House GOP voted for it 193-4, and the Senate GOP voted for it 40-5?

Perhaps because after pushing it, he's still the House Budget Committee chair, or perhaps because the Republican Party again submitted it in 2012 for FY 2013?

They're sticking with it, they voted for it, and they're still pushing it to this day: it's their budget now, not just his.

Having said that, I really think this should go no further: this thread isn't about policy merits (as noted by ASB earlier), it's about the mechanics of the Presidential election, and of other elections.

This question isn't about policy merits, it's about a campaigning aspect that I honestly don't remember. But, I'll let it go.

[Delator]

I think Ryan was picked to appease Ron Paul supporters as we come up to the Republican convention.

Not sure what that says about the state of the Party at present.

He might swing Wisconsin, but at the cost of national support across the board.

I think Romney fumbled HARD by not picking a candidate with foreign policy experience.

[Ashmoria]

Perhaps because the House GOP voted for it 193-4, and the Senate GOP voted for it 40-5?

Perhaps because after pushing it, he's still the House Budget Committee chair, or perhaps because the Republican Party again submitted it in 2012 for FY 2013?

They're sticking with it, they voted for it, and they're still pushing it to this day: it's their budget now, not just his.

Having said that, I really think this should go no further: this thread isn't about policy merits (as noted by ASB earlier), it's about the mechanics of the Presidential election, and of other elections.

This question isn't about policy merits, it's about a campaigning aspect that I honestly don't remember. But, I'll let it go.

no i think youre right.

'10 was "jobs jobs jobs". it was the races AFTER 10, the special elections, that went democratic due to the democrat using the horrors of the ryan budget against the republican candidate. not all of course but enough to be significant.

[Ashmoria]

I think Ryan was picked to appease Ron Paul supporters as we come up to the Republican convention.

Not sure what that says about the state of the Party at present.

He might swing Wisconsin, but at the cost of national support across the board.

I think Romney fumbled HARD by not picking a candidate with foreign policy experience.

do voters really care about foreign policy experience? im not thinking it through but i think the only thing that sometimes matters is MILITARY experience and that that is only when the republican has it and the democrat doesnt. (im hoping that is wrong when it comes to the duckworth/walsh house race in illinois)

it may be problematical that romney is all "ive got real world business experience" but picked a man without any real world business experience.

[Cannot think of a name]

the duckworth/walsh house race in illinois

That sounds like the candidates in an adorable election comedy.

[Wikkiwallana]

the duckworth/walsh house race in illinois

That sounds like the candidates in an adorable election comedy.

We could cast the other Joe Walsh as Walsh. He's actually a pretty decent comedy actor.

[Zaras]

That sounds like the candidates in an adorable election comedy.

We could cast the other Joe Walsh as Walsh. He's actually a pretty decent comedy actor.

Who'd play Tammy Duckworth though?

And more importantly: would Joe Walsh promise to make "Life's Been Good" the national anthem?

[Cannot think of a name]

Who'd play Tammy Duckworth though?

Holy crap, her first name is Tammy? That's it, I need three or four camera crews and a handful of associate producers, we're makin' a documentary as this race is most certainly adorable.

[Zaras]

Who'd play Tammy Duckworth though?

Holy crap, her first name is Tammy? That's it, I need three or four camera crews and a handful of associate producers, we're makin' a documentary as this race is most certainly adorable.

I doubt "adorable" would be the right word to describe an Iraq War veteran who now uses prosthetic legs...

[Cannot think of a name]

Holy crap, her first name is Tammy? That's it, I need three or four camera crews and a handful of associate producers, we're makin' a documentary as this race is most certainly adorable.

I doubt "adorable" would be the right word to describe an Iraq War veteran who now uses prosthetic legs...

You, sir, know nothing about movies.

[Zaras]

I doubt "adorable" would be the right word to describe an Iraq War veteran who now uses prosthetic legs...

You, sir, know nothing about movies.

This summer...

Jason Jones

IS

Thomas Drake

IN

Exceeding authorised use of a work computer

THE MOVIE

[Ardchoille]

Having said that, I really think this should go no further: this thread isn't about policy merits (as noted by ASB earlier), it's about the mechanics of the Presidential election, and of other elections.

^This. I've just moved one post by Quebec and Atlantic Canada over to the mega-thread before it generated replies. I haven't moved the other OT ones because they've been hooked into this one by replies that then go back to the topic.

Please, let's try to keep this truly fascinating (wonderful/useful/informed) thread clean. If someone starts discussing the election in terms of policy, don't reply, just ask in Moderation for the post to be moved.

[Alien Space Bats]

Electoral-vote.com Map (as of August 11th, 2012)



Obama 317, Romney 212 (9 Undecided)

---

PLEASE NOTE: AS OF YET, NO POLLS CURRENTLY SHOWN REFLECT ROMNEY'S CHOICE OF RUNNING MATE.

---

Just one new poll today:

• In Iowa (6 EV's), an August 8th poll by Rasmussen shows Romney leading by 2%; this is quite a shift from earlier polls, so we'll want to see further confirmation going forward. For now, the State swings from "Likely Democratic" to "Barely Republican"

I'd expect we're going to see a whole slew of polls over the next few weeks.

---

Were this an ordinary year, the next month would see a roller coaster ride in the polls: Saturday's announcement of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney's running mate could ordinarily be expected to produce a Republican bounce; three weeks from now, the Republican National Convention in Tampa Bay, FL would likely produce another; the week after that, the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, NC would produce a third bounce, this time in the opposite direction.

But there are indications that a substantial percentage of likely voters are already essentially locked in to their final decision (barring a major "October Surprise"), which means that this year we might not see any such thing. In a sense, we're about to have a test of the whole idea that a massive early effort, especially in such a deeply polarized environment, can effectively determine the outcome of the Presidential race even before the Conventions are held.

Indeed, in some ways the choice of Paul Ryan itself is consistent with the idea that the race is already essential decided: Ryan is intended to appeal to the GOP base, and appealing to the base is an end-game strategy. From that perspective, Ryan's nomination is supposed to rally the faithful and maximize their turnout in November, as much to try and ensure candidates up and down the ticket a strong base of support as to scare up the last few percentage points needed to win a close race.

Several people have responded to Ryan's selection by saying that they think it's a bad idea, in so far as it surrenders the middle and doesn't do a lot to attract potential crossover Democrats; from my perspective, however, its intention is to avoid what happened to the GOP in '08 - namely, erosion of its voter base through conservative abandonment of the ticket, which (if allowed to happen) would result in the kind of weak voter turnout that could turn defeat into a rout.

In a way, Ryan's presence on the ticket now challenges Democrats to redouble their efforts to galvanize their base. Enthusiasm for Barack Obama is still soft, and if it remains soft Democrats could lose; nor can they count on Paul Ryan's nomination for Veep to stiffen up their ranks. Ryan and his budgetary proposals could provide the juice that Democrats need to turn out their base, but they're going to have to work to transform that opportunity into reality. Then, too, since it now appears that the decision to name Ryan was made back around August 1st, and that also appears to be roughly when the Romney campaign decided to move its message off the economy alone and expand into a full-bore attack on Lyndon Johnson's legacy (the "Right Choice" ad [accusing Obama of "gutting" the work requirement for welfare] being the opening salvo in this offensive), Democrats are going to need to be ready to mount a broad defense of entitlements and public assistance - and to do so all while fighting the insinuation that such programs bleed hard-working white folks dry for the benefit of lazy, good-for-nothing dark-skinned slackers.

Chances are few voters are going to be swayed by this debate; yet swaying them may not be the point. More likely, the goal is to energize voters - or to force one's opponent into demoralizing his supporters through blunder or inaction.

I'll comment more on this soon enough, but for now that should be enough to clarify the broad strokes involved in the fight to come.

[Alien Space Bats]

Andrew Tanenbaum made an interesting observation on his site today:

Ryan Pick turns Election from a Referendum on Obama to a Choice between Visions

Up until now, Mitt Romney has treated the election as a referendum on President Obama: has he done well enough to get four more years. Elections with incumbents generally are about the performance of the incumbent, rather than a true choice between alternatives. Given the weak state of the economy, making the election about Obama's performance was a reasonable strategy for Romney.

But the choice of Ryan upends that strategy completely. Obama is going to say the parties have never been further apart and this election is where the American people get to say whether they want to keep the New Deal and Great Society or dismantle them. For Romney, that is far less desirable than a simple referendum on Obama's performance. But he brought it on himself by picking Ryan. Had he picked Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) or former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, nothing would have changed and Romney's original strategy would still work. Now it won't.

I would ad this observation: The Romney team must know this.

That means that they have effectively made the calculation that the previous campaign strategy, however easy it might seem on paper, wasn't working for them and that they would lose. Consequently, they choose to "shake the Etch-a-Sketch" in a completely different way: Not to just reboot their campaign and roll out "Romney 2.0" as the GOP candidate, but to reboot the entire election and make it the "2012 General Election 2.0".

It's a daring strategy, however much of a crazy long shot it may be. Of course, if it works, it will be remembered as something of a political Marengo - one for the history books.

<waits to see who fully appreciates the historical reference, in all its glory>

[Free Soviets]

Andrew Tanenbaum made an interesting observation on his site today:

Ryan Pick turns Election from a Referendum on Obama to a Choice between Visions

Up until now, Mitt Romney has treated the election as a referendum on President Obama: has he done well enough to get four more years. Elections with incumbents generally are about the performance of the incumbent, rather than a true choice between alternatives. Given the weak state of the economy, making the election about Obama's performance was a reasonable strategy for Romney.

But the choice of Ryan upends that strategy completely. Obama is going to say the parties have never been further apart and this election is where the American people get to say whether they want to keep the New Deal and Great Society or dismantle them. For Romney, that is far less desirable than a simple referendum on Obama's performance. But he brought it on himself by picking Ryan. Had he picked Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) or former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, nothing would have changed and Romney's original strategy would still work. Now it won't.

I would ad this observation: The Romney team must know this.

That means that they have effectively made the calculation that the previous campaign strategy, however easy it might seem on paper, wasn't working for them and that they would lose. Consequently, they choose to "shake the Etch-a-Sketch" in a completely different way: Not to just reboot their campaign and roll out "Romney 2.0" as the GOP candidate, but to reboot the entire election and make it the "2012 General Election 2.0".

It's a daring strategy, however much of a crazy long shot it may be. Of course, if it works, it will be remembered as something of a political Marengo - one for the history books.

<waits to see who fully appreciates the historical reference, in all its glory>

nate silver made a similar point.

Mr. Romney’s campaign could have cherry-picked the polls that showed him ahead, the worst economic statistics, the most favorable historical precedents, and concluded that it was a favorite.

Evidently, it did not do that. The ability to perform an honest self-assessment is rare for all of us. Mr. Romney, in making this outlook, may have been aided by his background in seeking to turn around distressed companies.

Why am I concluding that Mr. Romney would have chosen Mr. Ryan only if he felt he was losing? Because from a Politics 101 point of view, this isn’t the most natural choice. Vice-presidential choices are inherently risky to a degree, but the risks are asymmetric, and weighted toward the downside: It’s far easier to name choices who undermined campaigns than those who helped them...

Politics 101 suggests that you play toward the center of the electorate. Although this rule has more frequently been violated when it comes to vice-presidential picks, there is evidence that presidential candidates who have more “extreme” ideologies (closer to the left wing or the right wing than the electoral center) underperform relative to the economic fundamentals.

Various statistical measures of Mr. Ryan peg him as being quite conservative. Based on his Congressional voting record, for instance, the statistical system DW-Nominate evaluates him as being roughly as conservative as Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota.

By this measure, in fact, which rates members of the House and Senate throughout different time periods on a common ideology scale, Mr. Ryan is the most conservative Republican member of Congress to be picked for the vice-presidential slot since at least 1900. He is also more conservative than any Democratic nominee was liberal, meaning that he is the furthest from the center

[United Dependencies]

Right. Almost all the ad money is being spent in the swing States, although a little Republican money is being dumped on long shots like Minnesota.

God... I've seen all the ads here and I'm so freaking tired of it all...