Is the Romney Campaign Imploding?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Belay that abandon ship order. The bounce is pretty much over. Observe: Gallup has Obama down to a one point lead.

Conclusion: We got us a race on our hands. [/quote]

I still believe it’s Romney’s election to lose…not the other way around. It’s just that he’s coming up with some real howlers lately![/quote]

It’s never…ever the challengers race to lose. The incumbent has huge advantages and this particular incumbent sits in the oval office with the press in his hip pocket. So no it’s not Romney’s to lose. He’s the under dog and has been since day one when the Obama team painted him as an evil rich guy. Don’t get me wrong it is a very close election but Obama was and still is the favorite by a nose.

22

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Belay that abandon ship order. The bounce is pretty much over. Observe: Gallup has Obama down to a one point lead.

Conclusion: We got us a race on our hands. [/quote]

Thanks for dropping that poll in the thread Sloth. I like to follow the popular vote but the key states are more exciting to watch.

In Ohio as of 9-12 it’s a virtual dead heat according to Rasmussen. What I like about Rasmussen this time around is that the people polled are evenly matched dems, repubs and Ind. Many media pollsters don’t do that. They poll more democrats and they come up with an Obama lead of 4-5 points, gee I wonder why?

Edit: Note that the Rasmussen poll is the most recent 9-12. The earlier polls show more of an Obama lead as he was coming off his convention and still had the bounce. But I would say that the bounce (at least in Ohio) is gone!

By the way, there is a strategy for Romney to win without Ohio but it would take three other states including Wisconsin to fall into place.

[/quote]

Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Rasmussen was the most accurate in 2008.

23

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Belay that abandon ship order. The bounce is pretty much over. Observe: Gallup has Obama down to a one point lead.

Conclusion: We got us a race on our hands. [/quote]

Thanks for dropping that poll in the thread Sloth. I like to follow the popular vote but the key states are more exciting to watch.

In Ohio as of 9-12 it’s a virtual dead heat according to Rasmussen. What I like about Rasmussen this time around is that the people polled are evenly matched dems, repubs and Ind. Many media pollsters don’t do that. They poll more democrats and they come up with an Obama lead of 4-5 points, gee I wonder why?

Edit: Note that the Rasmussen poll is the most recent 9-12. The earlier polls show more of an Obama lead as he was coming off his convention and still had the bounce. But I would say that the bounce (at least in Ohio) is gone!

By the way, there is a strategy for Romney to win without Ohio but it would take three other states including Wisconsin to fall into place.

[/quote]

Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Rasmussen was the most accurate in 2008.[/quote]

I’m actually not sure about that. I think they change places according to how they ask the question and to whom they ask it. I like Gallup polling best. They’ve been around a long, long time and seem to be fairly steady and balanced. The latest Gallup poll has a virtual tie, Obama 47% Romney 46% as of 9-17. The margin of error I think is plus or minus 2%. What is interesting about that is that there are 7% either undecided, or flat out not saying! Now what do you suppose those 7% are thinking? Difficult to believe that they have not yet made up their minds isn’t it?

Many of the so called “news agencies” are not worth the time of day when it comes to polling. They’re famous for asking 65% democrats 30% republican and 5% independents and then claiming that Obama is ahead. Well, he should be ahead with such polling methods.

24

I’m far from perfect, but I sure do seem to remember Rasmussen calling it pretty solid from about the middle of summer up to the election in 08. At least with people I was in contact with his polling reflected what I was seeing. For what it’s worth.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/about_us/faqs

25

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Out of the 10 states with the highest percentage of filers with no Income Tax liability, all but one ? Florida ? are reliable Republican stalwarts.

http://taxfoundation.org:81/article/states-vary-widely-number-tax-filers-no-income-tax-liability

[/quote]

This is nothing new, pick any statistic and the negative portion is always higher in the red states. Murder rate, obesity, high school drop out, welfare recipient, etc.

26

And you two are suggesting those people who fit the stats–don’t pay income tax, dependent on government–vote republican?

27

[quote]Sloth wrote:
And you two are suggesting those people who fit the stats–don’t pay income tax, dependent on government–vote republican?[/quote]

I was laughing at the astute observation made that they are all “red” states, while ignoring many other social & economic factors…

I mean shit… No one wants to point out the top 10 are all grouped together, in one geographic location. That couldn’t have anything to do with it, nah… Nothing about that could have an effect on the number, nope. It is because they are “red” states.

29

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
And you two are suggesting those people who fit the stats–don’t pay income tax, dependent on government–vote republican?[/quote]

I was laughing at the astute observation made that they are all “red” states, while ignoring many other social & economic factors…

I mean shit… No one wants to point out the top 10 are all grouped together, in one geographic location. That couldn’t have anything to do with it, nah… Nothing about that could have an effect on the number, nope. It is because they are “red” states.

[/quote]

Hey Beans, excepting one minor tussle about a year ago, we’ve not “talked,” but I have slowly developed a lot of respect for you and your posts .

FWIW, felt like telling you that.[/quote]

ha, thanks man. I don’t remember a tussle, and am sorry if I was an asshole. (I certainly assume I was an asshole, lol)

The feeling is mutual.

30

[quote]Sloth wrote:
And you two are suggesting those people who fit the stats–don’t pay income tax, dependent on government–vote republican?[/quote]

Nope, it just didn’t make any sense to me.

31

Oh, my guess is, it’s largely an unfriendly media making mention that Mitt Romney is toast with the latest comment, or before this, last week mentioning there were no more independents left for Mitt Romney to sway.

Liked Jonathan Tobin’s article on Mitt Romney’s chances two months out from the election.

“Despite Media Pile-On, Romney Isn?t Toast”

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/09/19/despite-mediapile-on-romney-isnt-toast/

&

See this morning that the polls have once again tightened. Obama still leads, but Romney has a chance. The debates probably will be a deciding factor, I’m guessing.

“Poll Roundup: Presidential Race Tightens”

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/09/19/poll-roundup-presidential-race-tightens/

snippet from Alana Goodman’s article:

"It?s the strangest thing. The media already declared this week that Mitt Romney lost the election, but the polls still seem to show the race tightening. First, from today?s USA Today/Gallup poll, which has Romney trailing Obama by two points in the swing states:

Registered voters in key 2012 election swing states remain closely divided in their presidential vote preferences, with 48% supporting President Barack Obama and 46% Mitt Romney. Other than a nine-point lead for Obama in March, the two candidates have been essentially tied in the swing states throughout the campaign.

Gallup?s daily tracking poll also finds Obama leading Romney by one point nationwide. Note that both of these polls were conducted among registered, not likely voters, which means they are more likely to favor Obama:…"

32

Is Romney perhaps just trying to pander too hard to the far right of the Republican base with some of the howlers he’s been shooting off? To me he seems like a centrist. Maybe him/his campaign don’t think that a centrist stance will get him elected?

33

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Is Romney perhaps just trying to pander too hard to the far right of the Republican base with some of the howlers he’s been shooting off? To me he seems like a centrist. Maybe him/his campaign don’t think that a centrist stance will get him elected?[/quote]

Thing is, this comment isn’t pandering. It is the political death conversation we need to be having.

34

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Is Romney perhaps just trying to pander too hard to the far right of the Republican base with some of the howlers he’s been shooting off? To me he seems like a centrist. Maybe him/his campaign don’t think that a centrist stance will get him elected?[/quote]

Thing is, this comment isn’t pandering. It is the political death conversation we need to be having.

[/quote]

I don’t necessarily disagree, but first you have to elected to actually do anything about it, no? No good being all upstream and troutish now, only to be unable to deliver cos you don’t get elected…

35

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

I still believe it’s Romney’s election to lose…[/quote]

He can add it to his long list of accomplishments

36

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Is Romney perhaps just trying to pander too hard to the far right of the Republican base with some of the howlers he’s been shooting off? To me he seems like a centrist. Maybe him/his campaign don’t think that a centrist stance will get him elected?[/quote]

Thing is, this comment isn’t pandering. It is the political death conversation we need to be having.

[/quote]

I don’t necessarily disagree, but first you have to elected to actually do anything about it, no? No good being all upstream and troutish now, only to be unable to deliver cos you don’t get elected…
[/quote]

IDK. I don’t think Romney needs to get elected to effect serious change, if he doesn’t back down and this topic remains on people’s minds. He kick started a serious problem that only people not worried about votes were willing to talk about. Well, now we’ll see if you can talk about it and still get votes.

Look the TeaParty isn’t going away, and at least Paul Ryan has a plan to move the country in a different spending direction.

Once the TeaParty can break through the false image the media gave them, and keep winning state, local and congressional seats, you will see a shift in american politics. Because these people and the ron paul-bots will outnumber the Occupy folks.

None of this helps Romney, and if the republicans cannot beat Obama with his record, they should just give up and go home. How they have let themselves be branded as they have by the otherside is bad enough. But they have hope, they have in-roads to young creative minds now, and they need to start thinking about getting that done, and not re-districting people like Alan West away from their party.

37

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Is Romney perhaps just trying to pander too hard to the far right of the Republican base with some of the howlers he’s been shooting off? To me he seems like a centrist. Maybe him/his campaign don’t think that a centrist stance will get him elected?[/quote]

Thing is, this comment isn’t pandering. It is the political death conversation we need to be having.

[/quote]

I don’t necessarily disagree, but first you have to elected to actually do anything about it, no? No good being all upstream and troutish now, only to be unable to deliver cos you don’t get elected…
[/quote]

IDK. I don’t think Romney needs to get elected to effect serious change, if he doesn’t back down and this topic remains on people’s minds. He kick started a serious problem that only people not worried about votes were willing to talk about. Well, now we’ll see if you can talk about it and still get votes.

Look the TeaParty isn’t going away, and at least Paul Ryan has a plan to move the country in a different spending direction.

Once the TeaParty can break through the false image the media gave them, and keep winning state, local and congressional seats, you will see a shift in american politics. Because these people and the ron paul-bots will outnumber the Occupy folks.

None of this helps Romney, and if the republicans cannot beat Obama with his record, they should just give up and go home. How they have let themselves be branded as they have by the otherside is bad enough. But they have hope, they have in-roads to young creative minds now, and they need to start thinking about getting that done, and not re-districting people like Alan West away from their party.[/quote]

It’s tough to run a campaign against Obama AND the main stream liberal media. I don’t think anyone has enough money to be successful at that. The only question is, whether Romney wins or loses, will the MSLM continue this incredibly biased coverage post Obama? I think they will as all pretense is now gone.

What do you think?

38

[quote]ZEB wrote:
The only question is, whether Romney wins or loses, will the MSLM continue this incredibly biased coverage post Obama? I think they will as all pretense is now gone.

What do you think?[/quote]

I have been thinking about this since this afternoon…

I just don’t know. I mean I assume hollywood will stay left/far left/anti-american for the for awhile. I mean, when I was a kid Arnold and Sly were kicking ass and taking names, no pansy ass apologizing for stupid videos on youtube, there was some ass kicked and everyone fell back in line. So in 30 years we now have George Lucas changing the scene to have the bad guy shoot first rather than Han Solo… The back lash from the current pussification should come with people who are young teens now I hope.

As for the actual main stream media… I feel like yeah. Journalists are going to get tingles for whoever their corporate boss tells them they have to.

39

From Tea Party members that I know…they are DEFINITELY going to be out in Force to cast their “Not Obama” vote.

With that being said (according to the ones I know)…their focus never has been, and most likely never WILL be on the Presidency.

The key word is “focus”. Certainly controlling the Senate, the House AND the Presidency is a Trifecta worth fighting for…but the priority is a) Local and State Elections and 2) Controlling Congress.

Mufasa

40

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
From Tea Party members that I know…they are DEFINITELY going to be out in Force to cast their “Not Obama” vote.

With that being said (according to the ones I know)…their focus never has been, and most likely never WILL be on the Presidency.

The key word is “focus”. Certainly controlling the Senate, the House AND the Presidency is a Trifecta worth fighting for…but the priority is a) Local and State Elections and 2) Controlling Congress.

Mufasa[/quote]

This is why I’m saying they aren’t going anywhere. They are smart, this is how you effect real political change.

Good governance starts with the individual, and then spreads to the family. From the family it spreads to the community, then to the region, then the state. Once you have a state, others will follow. The Tea Party gets this. I mean, it is the way the country is set up to run and everything so it makes sense that it works lol…