I figured that this topic, especially as it relates to polling, didn’t technically fit into either the DNC or RNC thread. Now that we are past the conventions, polling and developments, etc.:
Washington Post/ABC poll shows that among likely voters, Obama sits at 49% and Romney sits at 48%.
I plan on reading Woodward’s book, coming out today (I think).
Good idea for a thread TB.
Romney gained the most in the states where he needed to gain with his convention. While Obama got a nice bump nationally. But as Al Gore found out the election cannot be won by actually having more people vote for you. It is an electoral race. Hence, more people voting for you in key state is how it’s won.
From this point forward the Romney team will inundate key battle ground states with advertising hoping to slide over the 270 electoral vote threshold. I also like their strategy of putting Ryan out there to talk about substantive issues. This way they can cover two places at the same time. Unlike Joe Biden Paul Ryan actually draws crowds and changes minds.
Look for these things to turn the race.
As for the debates, they usually don’t turn someone’s head who has already made up their mind (but it does happen when the performance is solidly better than their opponents. See first Reagan/Carter debate). But, there are still about 4% to 5% undecided a very small number at this point in time. But enough if captured by either candidate will make the difference on election day. After having watched Obama debate Hillary Clinton in 08’ I was unimpressed. Obama is at his best when he is talking in colorful prose and grand ideas with the use of a teleprompter. Romney has been battle tested from 14 republican debates. I feel that he will be sharper and if he goes on the attack early Obama will become flustered. If it is a big enough win Romney could conceivably pick up the remaining support he needs to put him over the top. But as I said it would have to be deceicve in order to make the kind of difference. Obama could very well weather the storm in that first debate. If he holds his own the polls will not change.
A higher republican turnout for Romney. If the race is tied or even if Obama is up by 2 pts. or so going into election day look for a Romney victory. Many of the Obama base, while talking a good fight, know that their hero failed in his first four years. He can blame Bush and they can mostly agree, but that sort of talk doesn’t exactly excite anyone to get out the vote on election day. Look for a lower black turnout as well, as this group had the highest expectations for Obama and suffered the worst. And when they saw that their own personal lives have gotten even worse (as this group was hit hardest by the economy), dissatisfaction has set in. In 08’ black people turned out in record numbers and equalled that of whites. But still about 8 million blacks who could have voted did not. This number only needs to climb to 8.5 - 9 million to give Romney a victory.
As I’ve been saying there will most definitely be an October surprise. Many will remember the democrats unleashing GW’s DWI conviction record a couple of days before the close of the 2000 Presidential race. This time, while it may be the Obama people, I feel it will come from a very loyal media. They will air something Mormon related and perhaps also tie it in to George Romney, Mitt’s father, as a last ditch effort to keep their man in office. This could turn some heads if it is on a major network. MSNBC doesn’t have high enough ratings to sway anyone. In fact, only the koolaide drinking far left watches that nonsense. But if CNN, or CBS (both biased but not as bad as MSNBC) unleashes an attack it could have a devastating effect on the Romney Campaign.
Whichever candidate wins he will not have a mandate from the people. I think this will be another squeaker, not unlike Bush/Gore 2000, Ford/Carter 1976 or Nixon/Kennedy 1960.
Get ready to stay up late if you want to find out who the next President of the United States will be.
Zeb, agreed on a number of points. One thing about the debates: Obama will have to answer for his record, really, for the first time. At the DNC, he had the carte blanche to avoid the topic. That luxury is gone, and Romney doesn’t have to be Lincoln to score a ton of points in the debates.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Zeb, agreed on a number of points. One thing about the debates: Obama will have to answer for his record, really, for the first time. At the DNC, he had the carte blanche to avoid the topic. That luxury is gone, and Romney doesn’t have to be Lincoln to score a ton of points in the debates.[/quote]
I agree but if his handlers tell him to play nice with Obama as they have been doing he will not be able to take full advantage of the moment. His people seem to think that Obama is so personally popular that it is unwise to attack him vigorously. And I think that is a mistake!
What do you say?
I hope I’m wrong, but I see Romney doing a McCain lite in the debates and trying not to look too contrarian. He’s already talking about the things in Obamacare he’d like to keep. Unless he’s clarified his remarks and I missed it which is possible. I agree with ZEB. It should be a civil, reasoned, but but definitive US vs. THEM stance unlike McCain who was trying over himself trying to out spend Obama in their debates. (Hyperbole, but you remember)
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I hope I’m wrong, but I see Romney doing a McCain lite in the debates and trying not to look too contrarian. He’s already talking about the things in Obamacare he’d like to keep. Unless he’s clarified his remarks and I missed it which is possible. I agree with ZEB. It should be a civil, reasoned, but but definitive US vs. THEM stance unlike McCain who was trying over himself trying to out spend Obama in their debates. (Hyperbole, but you remember) [/quote]
If you are refering to the pre-existing conditions I believe it is the same stance he has had for months that in a case of continous coverage, which has been law for awhile now.
So either one side is trying to blow up what Romney said, or he spouted off and his camp is doing damage control.
He needs to be wiser in the way he phrases things. I think I knew what he meant, but he left himself vulnerable to the charge that he isn’t THAT opposed to Obamacare after all. Even having to straighten that out is bad. He is not all that saavy a campaigner from what I’ve seen. He should have Rove as a secret adviser. Whatever anybody thinks about the architect, that boy is a wonkamatic deluxe. He knows how to run a campaign.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I hope I’m wrong, but I see Romney doing a McCain lite in the debates and trying not to look too contrarian. He’s already talking about the things in Obamacare he’d like to keep. Unless he’s clarified his remarks and I missed it which is possible. I agree with ZEB. It should be a civil, reasoned, but but definitive US vs. THEM stance unlike McCain who was trying over himself trying to out spend Obama in their debates. (Hyperbole, but you remember) [/quote]
If you are refering to the pre-existing conditions I believe it is the same stance he has had for months that in a case of continous coverage, which has been law for awhile now.
So either one side is trying to blow up what Romney said, or he spouted off and his camp is doing damage control.[/quote]
Yeah, that explanation doesn’t feel right to me.
That’s what he meant (pre-existing with regard to continuous coverage) when asked about what parts of Obamacare he was keeping? Sorry to say, but it feels like damage control to me.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I hope I’m wrong, but I see Romney doing a McCain lite in the debates and trying not to look too contrarian. He’s already talking about the things in Obamacare he’d like to keep. Unless he’s clarified his remarks and I missed it which is possible. I agree with ZEB. It should be a civil, reasoned, but but definitive US vs. THEM stance unlike McCain who was trying over himself trying to out spend Obama in their debates. (Hyperbole, but you remember) [/quote]
If you are refering to the pre-existing conditions I believe it is the same stance he has had for months that in a case of continous coverage, which has been law for awhile now.
So either one side is trying to blow up what Romney said, or he spouted off and his camp is doing damage control.[/quote]
Yeah, that explanation doesn’t feel right to me.
That’s what he meant (pre-existing with regard to continuous coverage) when asked about what parts of Obamacare he was keeping? Sorry to say, but it feels like damage control to me.
[/quote]
PArdon the blantant bias, but this is all I saw on it.
“I’m not getting rid of all of healthcare reform,” he said on “Meet the Press” over the weekend. “Of course, there are a number of things that I like in healthcare reform that I’m going to put in place. One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage.”
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I agree but if his handlers tell him to play nice with Obama as they have been doing he will not be able to take full advantage of the moment. His people seem to think that Obama is so personally popular that it is unwise to attack him vigorously. And I think that is a mistake!
What do you say?[/quote]
I think he needs to be aggressive, but “tough” doesn’t have to be “nasty”. He can go after the ineptitude forcefully without going below the belt.
And, I think Romney has it in him - witness his lack of timidity against fellow Republican nominees.
Romney just needs to steer clear from starting his arguments with “Obama is a nice guy, but…” - just start after the “but”. Then memorize every statistic related to the current era being the worst economic era since the Great Depression, and tear into the most rudderless presidency of the modern era.
Bonus points: he’ll have Woodward’s new book to crib from.
Sounds like Mitt is trying to tone down the extremist bullshit, which is good.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I agree but if his handlers tell him to play nice with Obama as they have been doing he will not be able to take full advantage of the moment. His people seem to think that Obama is so personally popular that it is unwise to attack him vigorously. And I think that is a mistake!
What do you say?[/quote]
I think he needs to be aggressive, but “tough” doesn’t have to be “nasty”. He can go after the ineptitude forcefully without going below the belt.
And, I think Romney has it in him - witness his lack of timidity against fellow Republican nominees.
Romney just needs to steer clear from starting his arguments with “Obama is a nice guy, but…” - just start after the “but”. Then memorize every statistic related to the current era being the worst economic era since the Great Depression, and tear into the most rudderless presidency of the modern era.
Bonus points: he’ll have Woodward’s new book to crib from.[/quote]
Exactly!
And also plan a couple of one liners as they are what’s quoted in the headlines the next day. And also talked about around water coolers.
Modern day televised debates are as much about style as they are substance.
On that point I must have some sort of disconnect when it comes to Obama. Apparently about half the country doesn’t see his utter conceit. And when I hear him speak he comes off as arrogant. Now before any of my democratic friends pounce on me claiming that it’s my bias, I never saw that in Bill Clinton. While I did not agree with much of what Clinton said I always thought he said it quite well.
Think any of the polls are both scientifically derived (as much as a sample can truly represent 100MM voters) and non biased?
[quote]treco wrote:
Think any of the polls are both scientifically derived (as much as a sample can truly represent 100MM voters) and non biased?
[/quote]
I wouldn’t trust any one poll. You need to look at the trend of all of the polls. Based on all of the polls, this election is over. Obama gets 4 more years.
jnd
[quote]jnd wrote:
[quote]treco wrote:
Think any of the polls are both scientifically derived (as much as a sample can truly represent 100MM voters) and non biased?
[/quote]
I wouldn’t trust any one poll. You need to look at the trend of all of the polls. Based on all of the polls, this election is over. Obama gets 4 more years.
jnd[/quote]
That’s absolutely false!
In 1980 Jimmy Carter lead Ronald Reagan almost right up to their first debate. When America saw the two next to each other they decided Reagan was a viable alternative. Ronald Reagan went on to carry 44 states and beat Carter by about 8 million votes. And just a few months prior to that he was down by 10 points! The voting public is very fickle.
Right now the very best polls show that Obama has about a 2-4 point advantage nationally. But what is more important Romney has made some great gains in various key states like Florida. Keep in mind that this is an electoral race not a popular vote race. Therefore. key states will determine the victor.
While I agree (and I’ve said from the start) that it will be difficult for Romney to defeat Obama there is no poll currently available that demonstrates that it is over. Not by a long shot!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
While I agree (and I’ve said from the start) that it will be difficult for Romney to defeat Obama there is no poll currently available that demonstrates that it is over. Not by a long shot![/quote]
This is where my head was at as well.
Given the margin of error, aren’t most the polls showing a dead heat right now?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
While I agree (and I’ve said from the start) that it will be difficult for Romney to defeat Obama there is no poll currently available that demonstrates that it is over. Not by a long shot![/quote]
This is where my head was at as well.
Given the margin of error, aren’t most the polls showing a dead heat right now?[/quote]
Yeah, plus or minus.
But I want to add one more thing which I stated in my first post on this thread. If Obama leads Romney by 2 points or so going into the final day Romney will emerge the victor. As his base is far more likely to vote than Obama’s base. The anti-Obama vote is far stronger (even if it is a tad smaller) than the pro Obama voter. Keep in mind that in 08’ when most of the liberal droolers thought that Obama was actually going to make positive changes 8 million black people did not vote! I will wager that we will be adding another million or more to that figure. This is one of Obama’s most important demographics because 95% of black people who show up at the polls will pull the Obama lever.
If we break down his most ardent supporters each has a reason to lose faith in the chosen one:
Blacks have a higher unemployment rate than any other group. And it has climbed even higher under Obama.
Many Jewish people feel betrayed by Obama for his various statements on Israel, the democratic platform debacle where they tried to remove the word Israel. And the snubbing of Netanyahu.
18 to 23 age group which has also suffered high unemployment under this President. Will the come out in record numbers as they did in 2008 for Obama? No!
Catholics who supported Obama last time out will not be there in the numbers that they were for many reasons. Not the least of which is forcing their institutions to hand out birth control.
White women are the last group that clings to Obama. And that’s why the Obama sleeze machine created this fictional republican war on women. And by all accounts it has worked. If Obama is reelected you can look to the other gender for the cause. However if Romney chips away even a couple of points at the female lead Obama will lose.
It’s easy to answer a survey question, “hich man will you be voting for?”
But each person must do something far more than answer a phone poll on election day. They have to take time out of their day drive to the polls, perhaps stand in line and then vote. We’ve seen through the years that in a close race “voter motivation” is a key factor in bringing home the win for a candidate.
Obama may very well be reelected (as I’ve said) but he better hope that he leads Romney by more than a couple of points by election day. If not we will be calling Governor Romney President Romney in January!
Obama and company better hope that they are leading Romney by a good 4 to 5 points on election day.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]jnd wrote:
[quote]treco wrote:
Think any of the polls are both scientifically derived (as much as a sample can truly represent 100MM voters) and non biased?
[/quote]
I wouldn’t trust any one poll. You need to look at the trend of all of the polls. Based on all of the polls, this election is over. Obama gets 4 more years.
jnd[/quote]
That’s absolutely false!
In 1980 Jimmy Carter lead Ronald Reagan almost right up to their first debate. When America saw the two next to each other they decided Reagan was a viable alternative. Ronald Reagan went on to carry 44 states and beat Carter by about 8 million votes. And just a few months prior to that he was down by 10 points! The voting public is very fickle.
Right now the very best polls show that Obama has about a 2-4 point advantage nationally. But what is more important Romney has made some great gains in various key states like Florida. Keep in mind that this is an electoral race not a popular vote race. Therefore. key states will determine the victor.
While I agree (and I’ve said from the start) that it will be difficult for Romney to defeat Obama there is no poll currently available that demonstrates that it is over. Not by a long shot![/quote]
There is nothing false about what I said. If you disagree with my view of the polls, that’s fine, but that does not mean what I said was false. Again- if you look at all of the polls as a whole, then this is over.
I’m willing to bet on it. Are you?
jnd
[quote]jnd wrote:
Again- if you look at all of the polls as a whole, then this is over.
[/quote]
I am happy to see your input, but can you put a bit more effort into it than this?
Your statement by itself is just an appeal to authority at this point.
If you are right, can you explain why? And no “look at the polls as a whole” isn’t explaining it, seeing as when I read things like this http://www.nationalpolls.com/stories/2012/0911-examiner-romney.html your post seems… I don’t know, baseless.