Romney-Obama: Handicapping the Race

[Farnhamia]

They absolutely are not, not when the GOP platform calls for not only an amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman, but another amendment that defines life as beginning at conception.

I'm talking purely in terms of political strategy. The Republicans want this election to be about the economy, jobs, and the budget because they think they can nail Obama on the nation's poor performance in those areas over the last four years. That's why Romney talked about experience at Bain and not his deep religious convictions or principled moral stands on social issues. It's why the VP candidate also happens to be the author and greatest advocate of the GOP's proposed budget, not a leader in community outreach. They never wanted the focus of the election to be on abortion or gay marriage or any of the other social issues that get people passionate to vote because that strategy could easily bite them back by getting the other side passionate about voting (and let's face it, Obama is a hell of a lot better at motivating a passionate base than Romney).

My question is whether the party still has it in their power to change the narrative at their convention to their advantage or if they've lost that control entirely already.

We'll see. I think the President and the Democrats need to hammer the Republicans on their medieval platform, and to point out that despite their claims to the contrary, the Republicans want the government deeply involved in your life.

[Khadgar]

They absolutely are not, not when the GOP platform calls for not only an amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman, but another amendment that defines life as beginning at conception.

I'm talking purely in terms of political strategy. The Republicans want this election to be about the economy, jobs, and the budget because they think they can nail Obama on the nation's poor performance in those areas over the last four years. That's why Romney talked about experience at Bain and not his deep religious convictions or principled moral stands on social issues. It's why the VP candidate also happens to be the author and greatest advocate of the GOP's proposed budget, not a leader in community outreach. They never wanted the focus of the election to be on abortion or gay marriage or any of the other social issues that get people passionate to vote because that strategy could easily bite them back by getting the other side passionate about voting (and let's face it, Obama is a hell of a lot better at motivating a passionate base than Romney).

My question is whether the party still has it in their power to change the narrative at their convention to their advantage or if they've lost that control entirely already.

I would wager the Akin debacle and Ryans relatively close association with that nutjob will change the narrative of the election considerably. Let's face it the attacks on Bain have got some traction, and any analyst who isn't an ideologue can tell the Romney/Ryan budget plan is insane. Now the Republicans are in the unenviable position of having their strengths as weaknesses. They can't run on national security against the man under who's watch Bin Laden was killed. Their attempt at running on the economy is hampered by the history of their candidate, and now there's a fine media circus about their backward beliefs on social issues.

[Alien Space Bats]

Electoral-vote.com Map (as of August 22nd, 2012)



Obama 297, Romney 241

---

Three new polls have been added today:

• In Virginia (13 EV's), a new poll by PPP dated August 19th shows Obama up by 5%. This is consistent with earlier polls showing the President enjoying a lead of 4-6%, yet stands opposed by recent polls showing a tightening of the race in the last two weeks. Well need to see further polls to get a better sense of what's going on in Old Dominion. The State shifts from "Exactly Tied" back to "Barely Democratic".
  
  
• In Wisconsin (10 EV's), a new poll by PPP dated August 19th shows Romney leading by 1%. Recent Wisconsin polls have been somewhat of a mess, so we can't really say if this one confirms other polls showing the Badger State moving into the GOP column; it is fairly clear, however, that even if the selection of Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate hasn't helped Mitt Romney's chances nationwide (and that is currently a judgement under widespread debate), it has certainly helped him locally by making Wisconsin a "battleground" State. With the average of the three most recent polls giving President Obama a net lead of 1%, the Badger State remains "Barely Democratic".
  
  
• In New York (29 EV's), a new Siena College poll dated August 19th shows Obama leading by 29%; while this is probably an overstatement of the President's support, it's not much of one. The Empire State remains "Strongly Democratic".

I'll have more comments soon on the Ryan "bounce", which has now pretty much run its course (and I'll explain why it's run its course when I post those comments...).

[Zaras]

ASB, have I ever mentioned your posts on this topic are awesome and probably the best thing on NSG right now?

[Neutraligon]

ASB, have I ever mentioned your posts on this topic are awesome and probably the best thing on NSG right now?

Agreed I look forward to them.
How do you think the rising issues in Syria will affect the election, since it seems to be spreading beyond Syria itself?

[Zaras]

ASB, have I ever mentioned your posts on this topic are awesome and probably the best thing on NSG right now?

Agreed I look forward to them.
How do you think the rising issues in Syria will affect the election, since it seems to be spreading beyond Syria itself?

I hope voters' reaction to problems in Syria won't be to vote the guy who insulted the Olympic Games and Palestinians instead of the guy who at least cosmetically rebuilt the USA's image and killed Bin Laden.

[Neutraligon]

Agreed I look forward to them.
How do you think the rising issues in Syria will affect the election, since it seems to be spreading beyond Syria itself?

I hope voters' reaction to problems in Syria won't be to vote the guy who insulted the Olympic Games and Palestinians instead of the guy who at least cosmetically rebuilt the USA's image and killed Bin Laden.

What I was thinking about is the fact that this might affect oil and the such as other countries are affected which may in turn affect President Obama.

[Zaras]

I hope voters' reaction to problems in Syria won't be to vote the guy who insulted the Olympic Games and Palestinians instead of the guy who at least cosmetically rebuilt the USA's image and killed Bin Laden.

What I was thinking about is the fact that this might affect oil and the such as other countries are affected which may in turn affect President Obama.

Hope voters' reaction will be to remember that the Prez can't directly control the price of oil.

If only people listened to Jimmy Carter... *sigh*

[New Chalcedon]

ASB, have I ever mentioned your posts on this topic are awesome and probably the best thing on NSG right now?

Agreed I look forward to them.
How do you think the rising issues in Syria will affect the election, since it seems to be spreading beyond Syria itself?

Frankly, one trend in politics (discussed earlier in this very thread, if I recall) is that foreign affairs don't register on most voters' choices in the ballot box....unless and until they get driven home as directly relevant to everyday life (for instance, a Eurozone breakup, which would wreak economic havoc worldwide).

[Neutraligon]

Agreed I look forward to them.
How do you think the rising issues in Syria will affect the election, since it seems to be spreading beyond Syria itself?

Frankly, one trend in politics (discussed earlier in this very thread, if I recall) is that foreign affairs don't register on most voters' choices in the ballot box....unless and until they get driven home as directly relevant to everyday life (for instance, a Eurozone breakup, which would wreak economic havoc worldwide).

The reason I'm asking is if this starts to affect oil, and thus oil prices.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Uh-huh. So I'm sure you'll be willing to cite this report?


E: Actually, no, don't. This should be taken to the Megathread, not here.

No, it's all right here. TLI is saying that's a tactic that the Romney team can use, and claims like that properly belong in this thread, not the other.

That said, political strategists have generally been reluctant to take the sort of tack you're suggesting, TLI. Yes, a policy argument can be made that attempts to lower provider reimbursement for Medicare - including even illegal reimbursement - will lead to providers dropping Medicare. This, in fact, is one of the biggest reasons for the ongoing "doc fix" that has become a standard part of each year's budget debate.

Yet it's not clear to me that the Ryan voucher plan - or any Republican alternative to the current Medicare system - offers a clear advantage over the current system, in so far as it forces Medicare recipients to make up the lost ground that taxpayers have to cover with every year's adjustment to Medicare now. Given that the likely result of doing so will be for increasing numbers of seniors (not to mention persons with disabilities) to be priced out of health care, I don't see how this is likely to result in a clear Republican win: On the one hand, wealthier seniors may lose access to their favorite doctors; on the other hand, poorer seniors (and the disabled) lose access to health care. Politically, that is what might be thought of as an "unclear situation".

And more to the point, these sorts of economic arguments are simply hard to make, especially to a populace that has deliberately refused to listen to the arguments of economists on any other issue; consequently, I'm just not certain that such an argument can be successfully made in the present political environment.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112hh ... g64228.htm

That's the report being given and referenced in Congress.

The fact that the Ryan Plan's impact has been lied about so much destroys any Team Obama credibility in speculating. They now have to do what they do with the tax returns, which is play on fear of the unknown rather than "Mitt Romney doesn't pay taxes at all".

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087 ... lenews_wsj

So you have concrete proof that Obama's plan will fail (coupled with big scary number like 716 billion), and speculation in response.

[Alien Space Bats]

I hope voters' reaction to problems in Syria won't be to vote the guy who insulted the Olympic Games and Palestinians instead of the guy who at least cosmetically rebuilt the USA's image and killed Bin Laden.

What I was thinking about is the fact that this might affect oil and the such as other countries are affected which may in turn affect President Obama.

Back in early June, I cited an article by The Hill describing various "Game Changers" that might shake up this year's Presidential race. I've revisted that article and my response to it on several occasions (on July 1st, when I talked about the Supreme Court decision on "ObamaCare", which had been #5 on their list; on July 7th, when I first talked about the Presidential debates, which were #9 on The Hill's list; on July 19th (in two posts), when I first suggested that the Obama campaign's attacks on Mitt Romney's record at Bain represented an attempt at turning the tables on the GOP in launching a powerful early negative character attack [a/k/a "Swift Boating"], hearkening back to Item #8 on The Hill's list, "Outside Money"). At one time I was prepared to write a post on the Syrian conflict (#3 on The Hill's list), but then tensions between Turkey and Syria began to subside.

The potential for Syria to become an issue in this Presidential campaign is still there, but I'm inclined to think that the odds of anything really earthshaking happening are smaller (quite unlike Item #4 on The Hill's list, a potential Israeli raid on Iran - which I still expect in mid-October). In a way, it's a shame that nothing happened - or rather, that what happened took place behind the scenes.

Essentially, Washington and Moscow, seeing the handwriting on the wall, applied the brakes to rising tensions on both sides, as it wasn't in either great power's interests to see conflict erupt between Syria and Turkey, given that such a conflict had the potential to escalate into a shooting war between Russia and NATO(!). If diplomatic efforts to head off conflict had been more public, it would have been a clear demonstration of the superiority of President Obama's commitment to quiet diplomacy over Mitt Romney's constant nostalgia for a "more muscular", "cowboy" foreign policy. But because the Clinton-Lavrov exchange was (properly) conducted in a private, low-visibility way, the resulting "understanding" between Russia and the U.S. had no value to the Obama campaign.

At this stage, any expansion is more likely to spill over into Lebanon than into Turkey (escalating PKK attacks inside Turkey notwithstanding); and while such escalation increases the chance of regional war, the biggest danger is that Item #3 will trigger Item #4 - IOW, that further erosion of Syria's position in Lebanon will open the door to a preemptive strike by Israel against Hezbollah, aimed at clearing the way for an Israeli preemptive strike on Iran once Hezbollah's ability to rain rocket fire down on Israel is more or less eliminated.

[Neutraligon]

I think I am starting to see the results of the focus on turnout rather than swinging voters. There is no reason for campaign adds to be shown in Utah, and yet, we are now getting them....Actually in the last 20 minutes I've seen 3 campaign adds on CNN with at least 1 by the RNC.

[Laerod]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444508504577595350022637244.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

So you have concrete proof that Obama's plan will fail (coupled with big scary number like 716 billion), and speculation in response.

TMI, that's a speculative opinion piece...

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

I think I am starting to see the results of the focus on turnout rather than swinging voters. There is no reason for campaign adds to be shown in Utah, and yet, we are now getting them....Actually in the last 20 minutes I've seen 3 campaign adds on CNN with at least 1 by the RNC.

This is my view entirely. The country is the most polarized it's ever been. It's all about who can get their base going more.

[Silent Majority]

I think I am starting to see the results of the focus on turnout rather than swinging voters. There is no reason for campaign adds to be shown in Utah, and yet, we are now getting them....Actually in the last 20 minutes I've seen 3 campaign adds on CNN with at least 1 by the RNC.

I think It's likely due to many networks being national, meaning ads get broadcasted nationwide.

[New England and The Maritimes]

I think I am starting to see the results of the focus on turnout rather than swinging voters. There is no reason for campaign adds to be shown in Utah, and yet, we are now getting them....Actually in the last 20 minutes I've seen 3 campaign adds on CNN with at least 1 by the RNC.

This is my view entirely. The country is the most polarized it's ever been. It's all about who can get their base going more.

That's because it's true. The 7% of "undecideds" actually split about 35-35 to voting party lines with only a third of them being "actually" undecided.

[Neutraligon]

I think I am starting to see the results of the focus on turnout rather than swinging voters. There is no reason for campaign adds to be shown in Utah, and yet, we are now getting them....Actually in the last 20 minutes I've seen 3 campaign adds on CNN with at least 1 by the RNC.

I think It's likely due to many networks being national, meaning ads get broadcasted nationwide.

IT isn't that hard to control adds showing up in specific areas even on national channels. PBS certainly shows that.

[New England and The Maritimes]

I think It's likely due to many networks being national, meaning ads get broadcasted nationwide.

IT isn't that hard to control adds showing up in specific areas.

People in California don't see many ads. It all depends on who is buying the airtime and what they want. Someone wants to broadcast those ads in Utah.

[Neutraligon]

IT isn't that hard to control adds showing up in specific areas.

People in California don't see many ads. It all depends on who is buying the airtime and what they want. Someone wants to broadcast those ads in Utah.

Exactly what I was saying. There is very little reason for these adds to show up in Utah, a highly Republican state, unless they are trying to get the base to vote. Mike Huckabee showed up in one of them

[Cannot think of a name]

I think It's likely due to many networks being national, meaning ads get broadcasted nationwide.

IT isn't that hard to control adds showing up in specific areas.

Network ad buys only account for a portion of an ad buy on any given show. Local affiliates are allocated space to sell local ads as well as providers, allowing advertisers to target specific demographics or relevant groups or just a geographic area that they cover.

[New England and The Maritimes]

People in California don't see many ads. It all depends on who is buying the airtime and what they want. Someone wants to broadcast those ads in Utah.

Exactly what I was saying. There is very little reason for these adds to show up in Utah, a highly Republican state, unless they are trying to get the base to vote.

Well... no shit.

[Silent Majority]

I think It's likely due to many networks being national, meaning ads get broadcasted nationwide.

IT isn't that hard to control adds showing up in specific areas.

There's no real good reason for the networks to do that. Selling ad slots that will be viewed nationally is a major money maker.

[New England and The Maritimes]

IT isn't that hard to control adds showing up in specific areas.

There's no real good reason for the networks to do that. Selling ad slots that will be viewed nationally is a major money maker.

Not really. It happens all the time.

[Neutraligon]

Exactly what I was saying. There is very little reason for these adds to show up in Utah, a highly Republican state, unless they are trying to get the base to vote.

Well... no shit.

All I was saying is that considering adds are showing up in clearly Republican areas supports ASB's idea that Republicans are focusing on getting the base out to vote, instead of going after "independents"