What Is The Republican Path To Victory?

[The Untied States]

I don't think that is true. There are more registered Republicans than Republicans in both Ohio and Florida. Something changed their mind to Obama or caused them to sit out. I think the debates, for independents, are the primary factory, aside from word of mouth, for moving them into one camp or the other.

[Mkuki]

I don't think that is true. There are more registered Republicans than Republicans in both Ohio and Florida. Something changed their mind to Obama or caused them to sit out.

Maybe independents, but most voters are decided on who they'll be voting for by September of election year. Not to mention that Florida and Ohio are hardly representative of most of the states.

I think the debates, for independents, are the primary factory, aside from word of mouth, for moving them into one camp or the other.

Do you have data to back up this assertion?

[Nigerian Kenya]

Actually, I think the barring of NBC at least is somewhat understandable.

On second thought, I think CNN also is understandable. Pres. Obama was given a pass, by both networks, in the 2012 debates - especially on issues like Benghazi, the forceful passage of the Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare), and the economy. At the time, if the President had been asked the "hard questions", I think the race would have turned out much differently.

The only debate that Obama participated in (in 2012) that was moderated by CNN was the town hall debate on Oct. 16 , when all questions were chosen by the audience. One audience member did ask a question about Benghazi (about denied security), but Obama decided to criticize Romney for politicizing Benghazi instead of answering the question, and neither the moderator nor Romney tried to force Obama into actually answering.

So, since CNN only hosted the town hall debate, when the moderator doesn't create the questions, we can't really blame it for not asking Obama the hard questions in the debates.

And NBC didn't even host a presidential debate in 2012. Here's the full list:

First Pres. Debate (Domestic Policy) : PBS
Vice Pres. Debate: ABC
Second Pres. Debate (Town Hall) : CNN
Third Pres. Debate (Foreign Policy) : CBS

I'm sorry, but your argument has fallen flat. As I said, I don't blame the Republicans for eliminating NBC - it's the liberal media after all. But CNN is usually neutral, and eliminating them will hurt the Republicans in the long run. But to claim that either network deserves to be eliminated for its moderation in the 2012 debate simply shows a lack of understanding of the format of the one debate CNN hosted - and a lack of knowledge that NBC didn't even host a debate.

[The Black Forrest]

Actually, I think the barring of NBC at least is somewhat understandable.

On second thought, I think CNN also is understandable. Pres. Obama was given a pass, by both networks, in the 2012 debates - especially on issues like Benghazi, the forceful passage of the Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare), and the economy. At the time, if the President had been asked the "hard questions", I think the race would have turned out much differently.

The only debate that Obama participated in (in 2012) that was moderated by CNN was the town hall debate on Oct. 16 , when all questions were chosen by the audience. One audience member did ask a question about Benghazi (about denied security), but Obama decided to criticize Romney for politicizing Benghazi instead of answering the question, and neither the moderator nor Romney tried to force Obama into actually answering.

A good debate tactic.

So, since CNN only hosted the town hall debate, when the moderator doesn't create the questions, we can't really blame it for not asking Obama the hard questions in the debates.

Oh so that's why he was elected.

And NBC didn't even host a presidential debate in 2012. Here's the full list:

First Pres. Debate (Domestic Policy) : PBS
Vice Pres. Debate: ABC
Second Pres. Debate (Town Hall) : CNN
Third Pres. Debate (Foreign Policy) : CBS

I'm sorry, but your argument has fallen flat. As I said, I don't blame the Republicans for eliminating NBC - it's the liberal media after all. But CNN is usually neutral, and eliminating them will hurt the Republicans in the long run. But to claim that either network deserves to be eliminated for its moderation in the 2012 debate simply shows a lack of understanding of the format of the one debate CNN hosted - and a lack of knowledge that NBC didn't even host a debate.

Noooooo not the liberal media!!!!!!!! It just shows the Republicans have no "real" solutions when they can't handle nor sway the opposition.

Debating on Fox is preaching to the choir. Just another reason why they will loose. All their God mandated gains will be lost. The American people are funny that way. They will sweep out a party when they don 't see solutions. Republicans have no solutions just the same BS......

[Blasveck]

The only debate that Obama participated in (in 2012) that was moderated by CNN was the town hall debate on Oct. 16 , when all questions were chosen by the audience. One audience member did ask a question about Benghazi (about denied security), but Obama decided to criticize Romney for politicizing Benghazi instead of answering the question, and neither the moderator nor Romney tried to force Obama into actually answering.

A good debate tactic.

So, since CNN only hosted the town hall debate, when the moderator doesn't create the questions, we can't really blame it for not asking Obama the hard questions in the debates.

Oh so that's why he was elected.

And NBC didn't even host a presidential debate in 2012. Here's the full list:

First Pres. Debate (Domestic Policy) : PBS
Vice Pres. Debate: ABC
Second Pres. Debate (Town Hall) : CNN
Third Pres. Debate (Foreign Policy) : CBS

I'm sorry, but your argument has fallen flat. As I said, I don't blame the Republicans for eliminating NBC - it's the liberal media after all. But CNN is usually neutral, and eliminating them will hurt the Republicans in the long run. But to claim that either network deserves to be eliminated for its moderation in the 2012 debate simply shows a lack of understanding of the format of the one debate CNN hosted - and a lack of knowledge that NBC didn't even host a debate.

Noooooo not the liberal media!!!!!!!! It just shows the Republicans have no "real" solutions when they can't handle nor sway the opposition.

Debating on Fox is preaching to the choir. Just another reason why they will loose. All their God mandated gains will be lost. The American people are funny that way. They will sweep out a party when they don 't see solutions. Republicans have no solutions just the same BS......

It's not necessarily just about solutions.

It's also reactionary members of the Party and the regressivism of others.

[Nigerian Kenya]

The only debate that Obama participated in (in 2012) that was moderated by CNN was the town hall debate on Oct. 16 , when all questions were chosen by the audience. One audience member did ask a question about Benghazi (about denied security), but Obama decided to criticize Romney for politicizing Benghazi instead of answering the question, and neither the moderator nor Romney tried to force Obama into actually answering.

A good debate tactic.

So, since CNN only hosted the town hall debate, when the moderator doesn't create the questions, we can't really blame it for not asking Obama the hard questions in the debates.

Oh so that's why he was elected.

And NBC didn't even host a presidential debate in 2012. Here's the full list:

First Pres. Debate (Domestic Policy) : PBS
Vice Pres. Debate: ABC
Second Pres. Debate (Town Hall) : CNN
Third Pres. Debate (Foreign Policy) : CBS

I'm sorry, but your argument has fallen flat. As I said, I don't blame the Republicans for eliminating NBC - it's the liberal media after all. But CNN is usually neutral, and eliminating them will hurt the Republicans in the long run. But to claim that either network deserves to be eliminated for its moderation in the 2012 debate simply shows a lack of understanding of the format of the one debate CNN hosted - and a lack of knowledge that NBC didn't even host a debate.

Noooooo not the liberal media!!!!!!!! It just shows the Republicans have no "real" solutions when they can't handle nor sway the opposition.

Debating on Fox is preaching to the choir. Just another reason why they will loose. All their God mandated gains will be lost. The American people are funny that way. They will sweep out a party when they don't see solutions. Republicans have no solutions just the same BS......

Ah, Fox. The king of all conservative media.

I do hope the republicans, if they lose in 2016, aren't stupid enough to make 2016 worse than it has to be. Here's two early predictions of mine that would devastate the republican party if correct:

Clinton vs. Jindal: http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_p ... mapid=bDvJ
Clinton vs. Palin : http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_p ... mapid=bDvK

[Blakk Metal]

[quote="Nigerian Kenya";p="16168602"I do hope the republicans, if they lose in 2016, aren't stupid enough to make 2016 worse than it has to be.[/quote]
What do you mean 'make 2016 worse'?

[Mkuki]

What do you mean 'make 2016 worse'?

Electoral trounce, probably. Like 1988 proportions of defeat.

[The Nuclear Fist]

Personally, I'm hoping for a Santorum/Bachmann GOP ticket.

[Blakk Metal]

What do you mean 'make 2016 worse'?

Electoral trounce, probably. Like 1988 proportions of defeat.

1988? I want fucking 1936!

[Neutraligon]

Personally, I'm hoping for a Santorum/Bachmann GOP ticket.

That would be absolutely beautiful. And in some ways I hope you are right. Maybe if someone like those two win, and the Republicans lose, then the moderates might be able to seize the party back from the reactionary part of the party.

[Vettrera]

I don't think that is true. There are more registered Republicans than Republicans in both Ohio and Florida. Something changed their mind to Obama or caused them to sit out. I think the debates, for independents, are the primary factory, aside from word of mouth, for moving them into one camp or the other.

or they Registered simply to vote in the primaries...
or again, they have no "real" ties to a political party...

[Nigerian Kenya]

What do you mean 'make 2016 worse'?

Electoral trounce, probably. Like 1988 proportions of defeat.

not quite 1988. I'm predicting a 377-161 Clinton victory over Jindal, and a 413-125 Clinton victory over Palin. My current Clinton vs. Santorum prediction is a 341-197 Clinton victory, but integrating the Bachmann factor would take at least Iowa and Georgia out of the Santorum column.

[Vettrera]

Well fuck the RNC then.
And the Republican Party Debates don't mean shit, they're stupid. Anything I need to know about them will be brought up in an SNL Sketch.

Ah but it doesn't hurt to have a little analysis. Steward and Colbert handle that well.

Bless the Republicans. They will keep Steward and Colbert on the air for awhile.

Part of me fears that republicans are just a serious version of Stephen Colbert.

[Mkuki]

Electoral trounce, probably. Like 1988 proportions of defeat.

not quite 1988. I'm predicting a 377-161 Clinton victory over Jindal, and a 413-125 Clinton victory over Palin. My current Clinton vs. Santorum prediction is a 341-197 Clinton victory, but integrating the Bachmann factor would take at least Iowa and Georgia out of the Santorum column.

BJ *insert immature laughter by half of NSG*- That's like 2008. Laaaaaaaaaaame!
SP- What states are you giving to Palin.

[Mkuki]

Electoral trounce, probably. Like 1988 proportions of defeat.

1988? I want fucking 1936!

I'd prefer 1984, but to each his own I suppose.

[Intaglio]

destroy all political parties

[Neutraligon]

destroy all political parties

I believe that this nation has long since passed that question.

[Nigerian Kenya]

not quite 1988. I'm predicting a 377-161 Clinton victory over Jindal, and a 413-125 Clinton victory over Palin. My current Clinton vs. Santorum prediction is a 341-197 Clinton victory, but integrating the Bachmann factor would take at least Iowa and Georgia out of the Santorum column.

BJ *insert immature laughter by half of NSG*- That's like 2008. Laaaaaaaaaaame!
SP- What states are you giving to Palin.

Palin would carry the following under my current prediction:

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska Overall, Nebraska District 1, Nebraska District 3, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, West Virginia

Clinton pickups from Romney's 2012 column would be as follows:

North Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, Indiana, Arizona, Montana, Nebraska District 2

[Greed and Death]

From what I can gather, it is shut down the government create recession, blame it on the ACA.

[Alien Space Bats]

Quite true. The debates sway very few voters. They're more like car showcases. Or wet t-shirt contests.* Most know what they already want before the exhibits even open.

Indeed.

While most American polls seemed to suggest that the race got a whole lot closer after the first debate, in which Barack Obama looked lackluster while Mitt Romney essentially reversed himself on every position he'd taken up until that point in the campaign in an effort to try and look far more moderate than he actually was, polling by the British firm YouGov showed that there was no real change in opinion; what did change was voter enthusiasm, with Republicans getting fired up by Romney's strong debate performance while Democrats grew both alarmed and disheartened.

The reason why YouGov got different results from everybody else was because YouGov uses panel polling while everybody else uses random sampling. Random sampling has many advantages over panel polling and is generally preferred by American pollsters, but YouGov has developed internal methods for reducing the various bias problems inherent in the use of a standing sample, and the fact that they can return to the same sample repeatedly allows them to track changes in the opinion of specific respondent groups (and even individual respondents) over time; thus YouGov was able to see that what was really happening was that the debates weren't changing voters' minds as much as they were changing voter's excitement levels.

Internal Democratic polling in the wake of the first debate revealed much the same thing; the result is that the Democrats redoubled their efforts at maximizing voter turnout, especially in those States that permitted early voting. Consequently, Republicans went into the final stretch thinking they could win (because random sampling was still being "tainted" by pollsters faulty assumptions about the relationship between voter enthusiasm and vote turnout); in the meantime, the Democrats turned out their base in spite of the enthusiasm gap.

The result was that the GOP got completely blindsided on Election Night; they really expected a win and ended up suffering defeat instead.

The moral of the story is that debates really only hype your base. If you're the GOP and your ground game sucks (as the GOP ground game has for a few cycles now), then you need that enthusiasm boost in order to have a chance of winning. But if you're the Democrats, enthusiasm isn't really what wins you elections; turnout wins you elections, and so if you're smart, you'll follow the standard Democratic playbook and work the Hell out of your ground game, because that's the real strength of the Democratic Party.

I don't think that is true. There are more registered Republicans than Republicans in both Ohio and Florida. Something changed their mind to Obama or caused them to sit out. I think the debates, for independents, are the primary factory, aside from word of mouth, for moving them into one camp or the other.

Wrong. There are more registered Democrats than Republicans in both of these States. The only swing State where Republicans enjoyed a registration advantage was in Iowa, and the Democrats outhustled the GOP in turnout there as well.

Maybe independents, but most voters are decided on who they'll be voting for by September of election year. Not to mention that Florida and Ohio are hardly representative of most of the states.

Correct. We discussed this at length in the 2012 "horse-race" thread. Per Steve Schmidt, who worked for the McCain campaign in 2008 (he was played by Woody Harrelson in the HBO movie "Game Change") and who is now a part of the MSNBC Election Night team (as a Republican commentator, along with Michael Steele and Robert Traynham), Democrats and Republicans both start with a solid base of around 47% of the electorate; the election then hinges on two things: What the 6% in the middle do, and the extent to which each Party manages to mobilize its base.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

The moral of the story is that debates really only hype your base. If you're the GOP and your ground game sucks (as the GOP ground game has for a few cycles now), then you need that enthusiasm boost in order to have a chance of winning. But if you're the Democrats, enthusiasm isn't really what wins you elections; turnout wins you elections, and so if you're smart, you'll follow the standard Democratic playbook and work the Hell out of your ground game, because that's the real strength of the Democratic Party.

Agreed. And let's not forget that the GOP started to essentially franchise out a huge part of their ground game to the churches starting back in the 1980s, and continuing to this day. While that played well back in the day, nowadays the younger voters and the moderates are seeing the churches as those folks who don't want their gay friends to get married. That's a huge problem when it comes to firing up enthusiasm AND turnout.

[Ashmoria]

From what I can gather, it is shut down the government create recession, blame it on the ACA.

that seems to be the path they are choosing.

it is unlikely to lead to victory.

[Mkuki]

BJ *insert immature laughter by half of NSG*- That's like 2008. Laaaaaaaaaaame!
SP- What states are you giving to Palin.

Palin would carry the following under my current prediction:

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska Overall, Nebraska District 1, Nebraska District 3, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, West Virginia

Clinton pickups from Romney's 2012 column would be as follows:

North Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, Indiana, Arizona, Montana, Nebraska District 2

You really think Clinton could pick up Kentucky and Arizona? I know Palin's insane, but that seems...optimistic.

[New Chalcedon]

Palin would carry the following under my current prediction:

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska Overall, Nebraska District 1, Nebraska District 3, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, West Virginia

Clinton pickups from Romney's 2012 column would be as follows:

North Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, Indiana, Arizona, Montana, Nebraska District 2

You really think Clinton could pick up Kentucky and Arizona? I know Palin's insane, but that seems...optimistic.

Bill Clinton won Kentucky twice, and Arizona once.

Those two States (KY more than AZ) are prime territory for DLC Democrats. Liberal white Democrats (read: Al Gore, or John Kerry) don't do well there. Black Democrats (Obama) also don't do well there. But white, "pragmatic" Democrats do pretty well there historically.