Romney-Obama: Handicapping the Race

[Wamitoria]

Doesn't his accepting the nomination for Vice-President later this month mean he's out of Congress anyway? He's up for election along with everyone else in the House, how can he campaign for both offices?

Wisconsin state law doesn't let him drop off the House ballot this late in the campaign.

[Khadgar]

It's wonderfully done. If anyone calls them on it, they'll feign innocence and declare that Democrats are just mudslinging to avoid the issues. The bold faced lie in the midst of it is awkward, but hell that's never been a big issue in politics.

As if bold faced lies were doing much to prop up the Romney campaign.

Speaking of which, I watched a clip from CNN this morning featuring an interview of Romney surrogate John Sununu by Solidad O'Brian. The Romney campaign is going to have to figure out a different way to explain these things in a way that doesn't involve John Sununu, because the man honestly makes an ass of himself in every interview he's in. "A poor relationship with the media hasn't hurt of so far!" says the Romney campaign.

Telling easily disproven lies after having done your level best to alienate the entirety of the media is foolish, but I think Mitt is thinking like an exec. No such thing has bad publicity, just as long as your product gets advertised.

[Wamitoria]

No such thing has bad publicity, just as long as your product gets advertised.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Business majors up in Boston actually think like that.

[Tmutarakhan]

I think you just proved my point. A district that goes for Clinton, Bush and Obama hardly sounds like some sort of ultra-rightwing bastion.

You misread. The district voted AGAINST Clinton, both times. Obama's win was a singular standout in a pattern of consistent Republican votes.

He beat McCain’s performance in the district by 17 points. How, by being more rightwing?

By being a five-time winner running for a sixth term. After a while, the local party stops even bothering to put up serious challenges to incumbents who haven't gotten themselves in deep trouble.

Is a district that is willing to split nearly down the middle for Russ Feingold going to send some right-wing extremist to congress with a sizable majority? I think not.

Then you think wrongly. This is not nearly as uncommon as you seem to believe.

[Tmutarakhan]

Doesn't his accepting the nomination for Vice-President later this month mean he's out of Congress anyway? He's up for election along with everyone else in the House, how can he campaign for both offices?

He is still on the ballot in his district. He won't campaign for it - he doesn't need to.

He might, actually, need to: he has a stronger opponent than in his last few races, largely because the rightward lurch he revealed with his much-criticized budget alienated some in the homestead.

[Fal Dara in Shienar]

I think you just proved my point. A district that goes for Clinton, Bush and Obama hardly sounds like some sort of ultra-rightwing bastion.

You misread. The district voted AGAINST Clinton, both times. Obama's win was a singular standout in a pattern of consistent Republican votes.

My apologies! But, during those same elections, they voted for a Democrat Rep' in 1992 (Les Aspin). So it still sounds like a wash to me.

He beat McCain’s performance in the district by 17 points. How, by being more rightwing?

By being a five-time winner running for a sixth term. After a while, the local party stops even bothering to put up serious challenges to incumbents who haven't gotten themselves in deep trouble.

And why didn't the Democrats bother to put up a serious challenge, because Ryan is too right-wing they couldn't possibly compete? You know that 2008, it was such a weak year for the Democrats... Heh. You're not making sense.

"Oh, yeah, Paul Ryan is extremely right-wing who is representing a district that leans left-of-center. There's no possible candidate we can put up!"

Is a district that is willing to split nearly down the middle for Russ Feingold going to send some right-wing extremist to congress with a sizable majority? I think not.

Then you think wrongly. This is not nearly as uncommon as you seem to believe.

You shouldn't throw stones in a glass house.

[Ashmoria]

ASB, you mentioned a few months ago that if Romney lost it would likely be blamed on him not being a"true conservative" and the party would run increasingly farther right candidates, but now that Romney has picked a running mate who is about as far-right as you can go, do you think the GOP could learn from a Romney/Ryan defeat, and become more moderate?

No.

The right will simply proclaim that the voters rejected Romney in spite of Ryan's presence on the ticket because he wasn't an Authentic Conservative™, just as they rejected McCain in spite of Palin's presence on the ticket. Unless Authentic Conservatives™ are nominated to both slots on the ticket, disaster will ensue (or so they'll say).

---

This leads me to wonder: If Mitt Romney wins, then Paul Ryan becomes the clear choice for 2020 (regardless of whether Romney wins or loses in 2016). That means that the soonest anybody else can possibly run is 2024.

In 2024, Jim DeMint will be 73; Jeb Bush will be 71; Mike Huckabee will be 69; Michelle Bachman will be 68; Rick Santorum will be 66; Susana Martinez will be 65; Tim Pawlenty will be 64; John Thune will be 63; Chris Christie will be 62; Sarah Palin will be 60. In essence, almost an entire generation of Republican wannabees will have been wiped out by age. Theoretically, Palin, Christie, and Thune might still be able to run, but after that it would be up to the next generation of candidates to carry the standard forward.

The only reason I mention this is because a lot of these people are expected to act as Romney surrogates in this campaign (except for Palin, who will focus on campaigning on behalf of her House and Senate favorites). For people like Bobby Jindal (who will be 53 in 2024), Nikki Haley (who will be 52), and Marco Rubio (who will be 53), going all-out for Romney makes huge career sense; but for the rest (except DeMint, who wants to be Senate Majority Leader someday), a Romney victory pretty much puts a lid on any further career ambitions they might have.

So you have to wonder, especially given how widely disliked Mitt Romney is among top Republicans: Hatred of Barack Obama aside, can these people really be expected to give this fight their all?

hmmmm

well....chris christie is going to give the keynote speech at the convention, i expect him to give it his all. but he has already said he is going to run in '16...supposing that romney loses. so ....he must be kinda hoping that romney will lose and the tea party will go away. hes not a good tea party kinda man.

[Khadgar]

No.

The right will simply proclaim that the voters rejected Romney in spite of Ryan's presence on the ticket because he wasn't an Authentic Conservative™, just as they rejected McCain in spite of Palin's presence on the ticket. Unless Authentic Conservatives™ are nominated to both slots on the ticket, disaster will ensue (or so they'll say).

---

This leads me to wonder: If Mitt Romney wins, then Paul Ryan becomes the clear choice for 2020 (regardless of whether Romney wins or loses in 2016). That means that the soonest anybody else can possibly run is 2024.

In 2024, Jim DeMint will be 73; Jeb Bush will be 71; Mike Huckabee will be 69; Michelle Bachman will be 68; Rick Santorum will be 66; Susana Martinez will be 65; Tim Pawlenty will be 64; John Thune will be 63; Chris Christie will be 62; Sarah Palin will be 60. In essence, almost an entire generation of Republican wannabees will have been wiped out by age. Theoretically, Palin, Christie, and Thune might still be able to run, but after that it would be up to the next generation of candidates to carry the standard forward.

The only reason I mention this is because a lot of these people are expected to act as Romney surrogates in this campaign (except for Palin, who will focus on campaigning on behalf of her House and Senate favorites). For people like Bobby Jindal (who will be 53 in 2024), Nikki Haley (who will be 52), and Marco Rubio (who will be 53), going all-out for Romney makes huge career sense; but for the rest (except DeMint, who wants to be Senate Majority Leader someday), a Romney victory pretty much puts a lid on any further career ambitions they might have.

So you have to wonder, especially given how widely disliked Mitt Romney is among top Republicans: Hatred of Barack Obama aside, can these people really be expected to give this fight their all?

hmmmm

well....chris christie is going to give the keynote speech at the convention, i expect him to give it his all. but he has already said he is going to run in '16...supposing that romney loses. so ....he must be kinda hoping that romney will lose and the tea party will go away. hes not a good tea party kinda man.

I suspect the idea of a schism has occurred to him. I'm wondering if he's tactfully ignoring it, or hoping the Tea Party splits off into a third party and the Republicans can restore some sanity.

[Alien Space Bats]

And very pointedly nary a black face to be seen in those adverts. So they can court the racially prejudiced without being overt.

Let's be honest, though. Why would Romney want to appeal to African-Americans? It's a lost demographic and a waste of money. Better to go after demographics that you can conceivably win over.

This has been Republican thinking for years.

It's bad thinking.

Consider this: George W. Bush, in his first Presidential run, won 8% of the African-American vote; Al Gore grabbed 90%. That 82% difference translated into a net gain for Gore of 9.4% in the total national popular vote.

Contrast this with Bush's second Presidential run, when he won 11% of the African-American vote; against this, John Kerry got 88% of this same demographic. That 77% difference translated into a net gain of only 8.5% in the total national popular vote, a difference of 0.9%.

Four years later, things went the opposite way: John McCain only won 4% of the African-American vote; Barack Obama won 95%. To be sure, race played a factor in this; yet the numbers still demonstrate something: winning the African-American vote by 91% translated into a net gain of 11.0% in the national popular vote, a gain of 1.6% over Al Gore's 2000 performance, and a gain of 2.5% over John Kerry's 2004 performance.

That brings us to the present race: The Gallup Organization's current tracking poll shows Obama leading Romney by 81% among African-Americans, 87-6. That drop of 10% in Obama's victory margin among African-Americans is expected to produce a net gain of only 10.5% in the national popular vote - 0.5% less than the gain Obama enjoyed in 2008.

Of course, this assumes sufficient African-American turnout to result in this segment of the population casting 13% of the total vote (the number estimated by Gallup as likely in 2012). In reality, turnout varies from election to election: In 2004, for instance, African-American turnout (relative to the changing makeup of the electorate) fell 1% from what it had been in 2000; in contrast, in 2008 turnout rose by 7% relative to what it had been in 2000, and 8% relative to what it had been in 2004 (again, these figures are themselves relative to the changing makeup of the electorate). Much depends on the degree to which high African-American turnout was greater due to increased enthusiasm for Barack Obama, as opposed to a mere continuation of long-term trends that have been driving African-American turnout higher and higher with each passing year.

To be sure, moving the white male vote 1-2% closer to Romney might have a greater impact on the election; but here (as in every other endeavor) we find ourselves running up against the point of diminishing marginal returns. Given that Republicans have done so little for African-American voters, one has to wonder whether a few simple gestures (like actually showing some real concern for the economic problems faced by our inner cities) might not bear more fruit than further efforts to double down on white male resentment.

After all, just as the difference between Obama's level of support among African-American voters in 2008 and his current level support - which is almost the same as Al Gore's support among African-American voters in 2000 - works out to a 0.5% boost in the national popular vote, a further decline in Obama's support to Kerry's 2004 levels would cost the President another 0.5%.

But even more importantly, such a shift in African-American support could help insure the GOP against a repeat of '08, in which Obama scored extraordinarily well among African-Americans and spurred the community to higher turnout levels; that combination - which is already certain to manifest itself within the Latino community - could drive a stake through the heart of the Romney campaign if they're not careful.

[Serrland]

Let's be honest, though. Why would Romney want to appeal to African-Americans? It's a lost demographic and a waste of money. Better to go after demographics that you can conceivably win over.

This has been Republican thinking for years.

It's bad thinking.

Consider this: George W. Bush, in his first Presidential run, won 8% of the African-American vote; Al Gore grabbed 90%. That 82% difference translated into a net gain for Gore of 9.4% in the total national popular vote.

Contrast this with Bush's second Presidential run, when he won 11% of the African-American vote; against this, John Kerry got 88% of this same demographic. That 77% difference translated into a net gain of only 8.5% in the total national popular vote, a difference of 0.9%.

Four years later, things went the opposite way: John McCain only won 4% of the African-American vote; Barack Obama won 95%. To be sure, race played a factor in this; yet the numbers still demonstrate something: winning the African-American vote by 91% translated into a net gain of 11.0% in the national popular vote, a gain of 1.6% over Al Gore's 2000 performance, and a gain of 2.5% over John Kerry's 2004 performance.

That brings us to the present race: The Gallup Organization's current tracking poll shows Obama leading Romney by 81% among African-Americans, 87-6. That drop of 10% in Obama's victory margin among African-Americans is expected to produce a net gain of only 10.5% in the national popular vote - 0.5% less than the gain Obama enjoyed in 2008.

Of course, this assumes sufficient African-American turnout to result in this segment of the population casting 13% of the total vote (the number estimated by Gallup as likely in 2012). In reality, turnout varies from election to election: In 2004, for instance, African-American turnout (relative to the changing makeup of the electorate) fell 1% from what it had been in 2000; in contrast, in 2008 turnout rose by 7% relative to what it had been in 2000, and 8% relative to what it had been in 2004 (again, these figures are themselves relative to the changing makeup of the electorate). Much depends on the degree to which high African-American turnout was greater due to increased enthusiasm for Barack Obama, as opposed to a mere continuation of long-term trends that have been driving African-American turnout higher and higher with each passing year.

To be sure, moving the white male vote 1-2% closer to Romney might have a greater impact on the election; but here (as in every other endeavor) we find ourselves running up against the point of diminishing marginal returns. Given that Republicans have done so little for African-American voters, one has to wonder whether a few simple gestures (like actually showing some real concern for the economic problems faced by our inner cities) might not bear more fruit than further efforts to double down on white male resentment.

After all, just as the difference between Obama's level of support among African-American voters in 2008 and his current level support - which is almost the same as Al Gore's support among African-American voters in 2000 - works out to a 0.5% boost in the national popular vote, a further decline in Obama's support to Kerry's 2004 levels would cost the President another 0.5%.

But even more importantly, such a shift in African-American support could help insure the GOP against a repeat of '08, in which Obama scored extraordinarily well among African-Americans and spurred the community to higher turnout levels; that combination - which is already certain to manifest itself within the Latino community - could drive a stake through the heart of the Romney campaign if they're not careful.

Much is made of the increase of African-American voters. However, I direct you to a census report that came out last month concerning the demographics of the 2008 election:

"As noted earlier in this report, the
South was the only region to show
a statistically significant increase
in voting rates between 2004 and
2008. When race and ethnicity are
considered alongside region of
residence, voting rates for Blacks
are shown to have increased in the
South. All other regions showed no
statistical change for Black voters
between 2004 and 2008 (Table 4)."

Sorry for the formatting, copy and paste made it wonky.

Anyways, I agree with you that it is bad to neglect the African-American voter block. But Romney/Ryan is running on what I believe is a bad platform on the first place. Unfortunately, they've hitched their wagons to a single demographic: disaffected whites. If they deviate too much from their message, if they throw the Latinos or the African-Americans a bone, they risk losing that demographic.

So the question I ask is this: is it worth potential risking the group that has been the #1 target from the start just for a 10 or 15% - if even that - gain among a demographic that is comparatively small? In 2008, 16.1 million African-Americans voted, a 2.1 million increase from 2004.* Let's assume that rate of increase remains the same (although I suspect it will not). That would make 18.2 million African-American voters, which is a decent demographic.

Let's assume Romney, if he really campaigned for the black vote, could get 20%. Given that Obama won 95% in 2008**, this would be a 15% increase - which is generous to Romney. 20% of 18.2 million would come out to around 3.5 million if my mental math is correct. That would represent roughly 3% of the white voters, given that there were 100 million in 2008 and applying the same rate of increase for voters to 2012, as was done with the black population.

It comes down to this, then - would the gain of 3.5 million black voters end up in a net gain, or would playing into "black issues" cost more than 3.5 million votes among his white voters and end up bringing him a net loss?

That being said, of the six states with over 2 million African-Americans, 2 are solidly Democratic (California and New York), 2 are solidly Republican (Georgia and Texas), but two, and this could be big, are swing states (North Carolina and Florida).

Anyways this has been meandering and longer than I intended it to be.

tl;dr - it is bad practice to neglect potential black votes, but given Romney's apparent campaign target demographic it is understandable (although I disagree with the route Romney is taking in the first place).

* http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases ... -ff01.html
** http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/raci ... -0120.html

[Tmutarakhan]

"Oh, yeah, Paul Ryan is extremely right-wing who is representing a district that leans left-of-center. There's no possible candidate we can put up!"

The district is strongly right-of-center (where do you get that it is left-of-center?) and Ryan was not notorious for extremism until he put out his budget.

[Jocabia]

Let's be honest, though. Why would Romney want to appeal to African-Americans? It's a lost demographic and a waste of money. Better to go after demographics that you can conceivably win over.

This has been Republican thinking for years.

It's bad thinking.

Consider this: George W. Bush, in his first Presidential run, won 8% of the African-American vote; Al Gore grabbed 90%. That 82% difference translated into a net gain for Gore of 9.4% in the total national popular vote.

Contrast this with Bush's second Presidential run, when he won 11% of the African-American vote; against this, John Kerry got 88% of this same demographic. That 77% difference translated into a net gain of only 8.5% in the total national popular vote, a difference of 0.9%.

Four years later, things went the opposite way: John McCain only won 4% of the African-American vote; Barack Obama won 95%. To be sure, race played a factor in this; yet the numbers still demonstrate something: winning the African-American vote by 91% translated into a net gain of 11.0% in the national popular vote, a gain of 1.6% over Al Gore's 2000 performance, and a gain of 2.5% over John Kerry's 2004 performance.

That brings us to the present race: The Gallup Organization's current tracking poll shows Obama leading Romney by 81% among African-Americans, 87-6. That drop of 10% in Obama's victory margin among African-Americans is expected to produce a net gain of only 10.5% in the national popular vote - 0.5% less than the gain Obama enjoyed in 2008.

Of course, this assumes sufficient African-American turnout to result in this segment of the population casting 13% of the total vote (the number estimated by Gallup as likely in 2012). In reality, turnout varies from election to election: In 2004, for instance, African-American turnout (relative to the changing makeup of the electorate) fell 1% from what it had been in 2000; in contrast, in 2008 turnout rose by 7% relative to what it had been in 2000, and 8% relative to what it had been in 2004 (again, these figures are themselves relative to the changing makeup of the electorate). Much depends on the degree to which high African-American turnout was greater due to increased enthusiasm for Barack Obama, as opposed to a mere continuation of long-term trends that have been driving African-American turnout higher and higher with each passing year.

To be sure, moving the white male vote 1-2% closer to Romney might have a greater impact on the election; but here (as in every other endeavor) we find ourselves running up against the point of diminishing marginal returns. Given that Republicans have done so little for African-American voters, one has to wonder whether a few simple gestures (like actually showing some real concern for the economic problems faced by our inner cities) might not bear more fruit than further efforts to double down on white male resentment.

After all, just as the difference between Obama's level of support among African-American voters in 2008 and his current level support - which is almost the same as Al Gore's support among African-American voters in 2000 - works out to a 0.5% boost in the national popular vote, a further decline in Obama's support to Kerry's 2004 levels would cost the President another 0.5%.

But even more importantly, such a shift in African-American support could help insure the GOP against a repeat of '08, in which Obama scored extraordinarily well among African-Americans and spurred the community to higher turnout levels; that combination - which is already certain to manifest itself within the Latino community - could drive a stake through the heart of the Romney campaign if they're not careful.

This is precisely the thinking that got the Dems to move from being the racist party to the party of today. Oddly enough, after they learned this lesson, the Republican party just couldn't help shifting their positions to pick up those racists that were left in the gap.

[Fal Dara in Shienar]

"Oh, yeah, Paul Ryan is extremely right-wing who is representing a district that leans left-of-center. There's no possible candidate we can put up!"

The district is strongly right-of-center (where do you get that it is left-of-center?) and Ryan was not notorious for extremism until he put out his budget.

Cook Political Report puts it at R +1. The ratings of the Republican candidates present in the district that have been voted into office (from the ratings of self-identified 'conservative' groups) indicate that they are generally left-leaning by American standards. So I generally conclude that if half the district votes for slightly left-leaning Republicans, and the other half essentially vote for left-leaning Democrats, I judge the district at roughly left-of-center. L +1, essentially.

With the exception of Paul Ryan (after he presented his budget proposal) what candidate has WI-1st voted for that supports anything you've said so far? So they went a few percent for Walker instead of Barrett; neither of whom are crazy right-wingers. They were, guesstimating from the county results, a few points for Jon Johnson instead of Feingold; neither of whom are crazy right-wingers. They send a mix of Democrats and Republicans to the State Assembly, and not one seems to be a crazy right-winger... They go for Bush and Obama; neither of whom are crazy right-wingers. But then, you argue, that out of this rather middle of the road district these people decide to send some arch-conservative with a commanding majority? McCain won 47% of the vote, Paul Ryan won 64. Clearly, a respectable portion of people who voted for Obama turned around and voted for him. Closeted right-wingers, trying to throw off polling numbers? Or, more likely, Paul Ryan has something to offer to people who also support Obama.

[Alien Space Bats]

tl;dr - it is bad practice to neglect potential black votes, but given Romney's apparent campaign target demographic it is understandable (although I disagree with the route Romney is taking in the first place).

<nods>

It's a sound and serious question - and yes, the impact of this choice is likely to be greatest in Florida and North Carolina - although Georgia potentially looms as vulnerable if you extend this trend out a few more years.

My personal view is that Republicans have reached the point of diminishing marginal returns with the white male vote. Remember this sequence: 36-37-38-36-37-41. Those numbers are the percentage of while male voters that went Democratic in the last six elections, dating back to 1988.

The point is that between Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry, Republicans couldn't find a handle to push the Democratic share of the so-called "Bubba" vote below 36%. Even now, with the Scary Black Man™ running against the Mormon White Horse™, the Gallup Organization is showing Barack Obama getting 34% of the white male vote against Romney in its weekly tracking poll (against Mitt Romney's 58%, for a 24% spread in favor of the GOP). Mind you, that's a real improvement over John McCain's 16% spread; that extra 8% translates into a 2.9% bump in the popular vote, closing Obama's "all-other-things-being-equal" lead from 7.2% to 4.3% - a very big thing indeed.

But Republican strategists, as I have repeated said, are smoking crack if they think they can pull in the remaining (undecided) 8%. The best they can hope for at this stage, I suspect, is to widen their current 24% lead to 26%, which would give them a 3.6% bump in the popular vote.

Feeding in the current numbers completes the picture of the impeding train wreck: Obama wins the African-American vote (13% of the electorate) 88-5 (i.e., by 83%), worth a 10.8% boost in the popular vote; he wins the growing Latino vote (9% of the electorate) 62-24 (i.e., by 38%), worth a 3.4% boost in the popular vote; he wins the remaining non-white (Asian, Native American/Inuit/Pacific Islander) vote (3% of the electorate) 58-31 (i.e., by 27%), worth a further 0.8% boost in the popular vote. Overall, these groups give Obama a net 15.0% gain in the popular vote.

Against this, Romney's current 24% lead among white males (33% of the electorate) gives Romney an 8.6% boost in the popular vote, leaving him 6.4% short of even. With white women (36% of the electorate) as the only remaining demographic group, Romney needs to win by an 18% margin or more to pull into the lead (or at least get over 16% to make the race a virtual toss-up).

Mitt Romney is current winning the white female vote by 50-43 (i.e., by a 7% margin) - which essentially represents no improvement over John McCain's performance with this same group (in '08, McCain won white women 53-46). So you seriously have to ask: What is the Romney team planning on doing to secure the support of white women, who are the swing demographic in today's political environment? After all, as indicated above, a 7% lead is not enough: Winning white female voters by 7% only closes the gap by another 2.5%, leaving Romney still 3.9% short. To be sure, if Romney can improve his performance among white male voters beyond his current 24% lead, that will help: Each 1% increase among white men reduces the threshold for victory among white women by 0.92%. But 7% is still way short of 16-18%, and 2-3% more among men isn't going to lower that bar by a lot. Romney still needs to find a handle he can use in getting through to white women, and at this point, nothing about the Ryan pick seems likely to help him along that path.

---

That said, I think that the GOP is hoping for much, much lower non-white turnout as a way of squaring the circle. I haven't looked at the scoring on any poll other than Gallup, but I've noticed that most polling organizations seem to have bought into the narrative that non-white turnout is going to be lower by far than anything we've seen in a long, long time. For my part, I think that a very poor bet; but maybe everyone is figuring that low enthusiasm among Democrats (essentially, repeating what we saw in the 2010 midterms) combined with Voter ID laws are going to do the trick.

We'll see.

[Wamitoria]

ASB, you may want to look at this. This specific analysis only applies to Gallup, but I wouldn't be surprised if it also applied to other polling organizations.

[TomKirk]

The district is strongly right-of-center (where do you get that it is left-of-center?) and Ryan was not notorious for extremism until he put out his budget.

Cook Political Report puts it at R +1. The ratings of the Republican candidates present in the district that have been voted into office (from the ratings of self-identified 'conservative' groups) indicate that they are generally left-leaning by American standards.

"Self-identified conservative groups" tend to be very far right of center; "left-leaning" Republicans by the standards of such groups are not left-leaning by "American standards"; there are hardly any left-leaning Republicans left, now that the Northeastern wing of the party is almost dead. Nor have the Democrats from there been left-leaning Democrats: Les Aspin? Are you kidding?

With the exception of Paul Ryan (after he presented his budget proposal) what candidate has WI-1st voted for that supports anything you've said so far?

I don't what it is that I have said so far that you think you are arguing with; I think we are actually talking past each other. I had the impression you were arguing that Ryan cannot really be the extreme right-winger he now appears to be, given the district where he comes from; what I have said is that his personal extremist views were not well known until lately: his voting record was simply as a loyal Bushie, from bank deregulation at the tail end of the Clinton administration through the bailout at the tail end of Bush, with votes for both the wars and all the tax cuts etc. and no initiatives of his own at all, except to rename the local post office for Aspin and one other thing, which I forget right now; his consistent re-election was not unusual, as most incumbents get re-elected unless hit by some big controversy, since the national parties don't pump much money into such races and the local parties prefer to put their best candidates up for offices they have better chance of winning; now that the district has shown less of a rightist slant, with the vote for Obama, and now that Ryan has been exposed as much more rightist than most of his constituents understood him to be, the Democratic nominee this time is going to give him a harder fight for his seat than he has been accustomed to.

[Cameroi]

we can always seriously hope and pray romney doesn't stand a snowflakes chance in hell. but. i remember waking up the morning raygun was elected and saying "how the hell did THAT happen?"
(i'm sure, the dewey/truman thing, there were folks on the other side of the isle having the same experience)

what republican stratigists seem to be counting on, is disenfranchising that remaining 8%.

[United Dependencies]

If only the democrats could come up with something like the cross of gold speech...

[Wamitoria]

If only the democrats could come up with something like the cross of gold speech...

If anyone can do it, the Obama campaign can.

[Silent Majority]

If only the democrats could come up with something like the cross of gold speech...

Even though Fox News likes to say otherwise(the whole teleprompter thing they went on and on about), I think Obama is actually a pretty good public speaker.

[Fal Dara in Shienar]

Cook Political Report puts it at R +1. The ratings of the Republican candidates present in the district that have been voted into office (from the ratings of self-identified 'conservative' groups) indicate that they are generally left-leaning by American standards.

"Self-identified conservative groups" tend to be very far right of center; "left-leaning" Republicans by the standards of such groups are not left-leaning by "American standards"; there are hardly any left-leaning Republicans left, now that the Northeastern wing of the party is almost dead. Nor have the Democrats from there been left-leaning Democrats: Les Aspin? Are you kidding?

With the exception of Paul Ryan (after he presented his budget proposal) what candidate has WI-1st voted for that supports anything you've said so far?

I don't what it is that I have said so far that you think you are arguing with; I think we are actually talking past each other. I had the impression you were arguing that Ryan cannot really be the extreme right-winger he now appears to be, given the district where he comes from; what I have said is that his personal extremist views were not well known until lately: his voting record was simply as a loyal Bushie, from bank deregulation at the tail end of the Clinton administration through the bailout at the tail end of Bush, with votes for both the wars and all the tax cuts etc. and no initiatives of his own at all, except to rename the local post office for Aspin and one other thing, which I forget right now; his consistent re-election was not unusual, as most incumbents get re-elected unless hit by some big controversy, since the national parties don't pump much money into such races and the local parties prefer to put their best candidates up for offices they have better chance of winning; now that the district has shown less of a rightist slant, with the vote for Obama, and now that Ryan has been exposed as much more rightist than most of his constituents understood him to be, the Democratic nominee this time is going to give him a harder fight for his seat than he has been accustomed to.

I'm sorry but I can't understand what you're saying. Don't take this the wrong way, but is English your first language? If it's your first, perhaps some proofreading would be a good idea. Maybe you could use less semicolons? If it's not your native tongue then all the best and I'm impressed. Sadly, I really don't know how to respond because I can't parse your response.

[TomKirk]

"Self-identified conservative groups" tend to be very far right of center; "left-leaning" Republicans by the standards of such groups are not left-leaning by "American standards"; there are hardly any left-leaning Republicans left, now that the Northeastern wing of the party is almost dead. Nor have the Democrats from there been left-leaning Democrats: Les Aspin? Are you kidding?

I don't what it is that I have said so far that you think you are arguing with; I think we are actually talking past each other. I had the impression you were arguing that Ryan cannot really be the extreme right-winger he now appears to be, given the district where he comes from; what I have said is that his personal extremist views were not well known until lately: his voting record was simply as a loyal Bushie, from bank deregulation at the tail end of the Clinton administration through the bailout at the tail end of Bush, with votes for both the wars and all the tax cuts etc. and no initiatives of his own at all, except to rename the local post office for Aspin and one other thing, which I forget right now; his consistent re-election was not unusual, as most incumbents get re-elected unless hit by some big controversy, since the national parties don't pump much money into such races and the local parties prefer to put their best candidates up for offices they have better chance of winning; now that the district has shown less of a rightist slant, with the vote for Obama, and now that Ryan has been exposed as much more rightist than most of his constituents understood him to be, the Democratic nominee this time is going to give him a harder fight for his seat than he has been accustomed to.

I'm sorry but I can't understand what you're saying. Don't take this the wrong way, but is English your first language? If it's your first, perhaps some proofreading would be a good idea. Maybe you could use less semicolons? If it's not your native tongue then all the best and I'm impressed. Sadly, I really don't know how to respond because I can't parse your response.

I thought I was expressing myself very clearly. You seem to have made up your mind what you thought I was arguing before you read any of my posts, so I was compressing everything that I have ACTUALLY meant. Yes, Ryan is an extreme right-winger. No, his district is not "left" leaning, though it is not as far right as Ryan has revealed himself to be. His electoral success in a district that is not as rightist as he is does not indicate either that he is more moderate than he is now seen to be, or that he is a shoo-in to get elected again.

[Wikkiwallana]

I thought I was expressing myself very clearly.

You were. I do not know enough to say if you were right or wrong, but you were clear.

[Jocabia]

I thought I was expressing myself very clearly.

You were. I do not know enough to say if you were right or wrong, but you were clear.

He was clear. And I do know enough to know he was correct as well.

Saying that Conservatives consider the district left-leaning doesn't mean anything. If Reagan ran today, he'd be considered a socialist. Independent groups find the district to have a Conservative leaning, as does their voting history.

TomKirk made that point very clear.

[Fal Dara in Shienar]

I understand that what he was saying was readable, but I simply don't understand how it connects to me or what I said at all.

The train of replies is me, New Chalcedon, me, Wam, me, Random-Ass Name. Then this guy pops up to say we're talking past each other even though, without trying to sound rude, I don't remember talking at him. So I'm assuming I read it wrong, then, or something because I am not able to understand why he's saying half the things he's saying because they imply a previous correspondence that I don't remember making.

I'm not sure how both of you think the connection is clear, but I'm not catching it.