• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2012 |OT3| If it's not a legitimate OT the mods have ways to shut it down

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tim-E

Member
Qazaq said:
Can you give more detail? When/where did he say this? And what did he exactly say?
Click to expand...

This morning's Daily Rundown. He said that their goal is to swap OH with WI. For Romney to win without Ohio, he needs Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida. I don't think it's realistic for his campaign to expect every single one of those.
 
B

Byakuya769

Member
Jooney said:
I love how in that Bill Maher interview, Dinesh asserts that because the PPACA didn't receive a single republican vote, it's evident that Obama didn't court republican ideas. What?

It takes a bizarre mind to reach that conclusion, rather than say, that the repubs wanted to stonewall any achievement by the President.
Click to expand...
Practically all republican minds are bizarre then. That point is taken as gospel by most.
 
T

Tim-E

Member
The fact that it's such a stupid strategy leads me to believe that the Romney campaign is actually considering it.
 
A

Arrowgigantic

Member
“He just told me to, um, there’s assistance out there,” Chiarello said of her conversation with Romney. “He said, go home and call 211.” That’s a public service number offered in many states.
Chiarello said she will likely seek some other shelter because her home was submerged in the flooding.
Click to expand...
Jesus H. Christ and the Latter Day Saints, Mitt, c'mon son.
 
P

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
The bigger question, and one I ask repeatedly: what has the Romney campaign done that convinces anybody that they're just too smart to pull out of Ohio? I'm talking about stuff all the way down to design-level minutia with that stupid app fuck-up all the way up to seriously questionable campaign-wide strategies of picking the most toxic non-Palin in the country as your VP. Look closer and you'll see an extremely flawed candidate and an even worse staff making gaffes, terrible decisions, and seriously bad mistakes from day fucking one. Again: why wouldn't they give up Ohio? They probably think they can win Michigan and Wisconsin as a 2-for-1.
 
M

Measley

Junior Member
Black Republican said:
no way.

i hope they realize they wont win that way......nope not buying it. But if they are:

*insertyouarealreadydeadgif
Click to expand...

They don't have a choice. The economy here is rock solid because of the auto bailouts, and the three of the four largest population centers (Columbus, Cleveland, and Toledo) are solidly in the blue. Romney didn't do himself any favors by supporting Senate Bill 5 either.
 
B

Black Republican

Member
There goes my idea of Romney moving all resources to Ohio then,lol

i still think if Rob portman wasnt tied to bush as budget director, he would've been chosen.
 
M

Measley

Junior Member
Black Republican said:
There goes my idea of Romney moving all resources to Ohio then,lol

i still think if Rob portman wasnt tied to bush as budget director, he would've been chosen.
Click to expand...

Honestly I think that Portman would have been a better pick than the lying machine that is Paul Ryan. It amazes me how afraid Republicans are of George Bush.
 
P

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
If you were Romney and couldn't change anything else up to this moment that you've already fucked up, what would you do?

Looks to me like they're pursuing a northern strategy, probably hoping to secure Wisconsin through brute force and Iowa and Michigan as a sphere-of-influence thing. PA is gone, but we knew that. Ohio has incredibly bad internals for you, and Florida looks like it could be slipping, and god knows about North Carolina.

I can see the idea going north, especially if he has a couple hundred million to blow through Super PAC proxy -- but in which reality can he not seriously contest all three of Ohio, Florida, North Carolina? Mind boggling.
 
A

Arrowgigantic

Member
tumblr_m9s2xtGtIM1ruwc07o1_500.png
 
R

RDreamer

Member
There's an interesting study out saying that conservatives facts to justify their beliefs or moral systems more than liberals do

In their study, Liu and Ditto asked over 1,500 people about their moral and factual views on four highly divisive political issues. Two of them–the death penalty and the forceful interrogation of terrorists using techniques like water-boarding–are ones where liberals tend to think the act in question is morally unacceptableeven if it actually yields benefits (for instance, deterring crime, or providing intelligence that can help prevent further terrorist strikes). The other two–providing information about condoms in the context of sex education, and embryonic stem cell research–are ones where conservatives tend to think the act in question is unacceptable even if it yields benefits (helping to prevent unwanted pregnancies, leading to cures for devastating diseases).

In the experiment, the subjects were first asked about their absolute moral beliefs: For instance, is the death penalty wrongeven if it deters others from committing crimes? But they were also asked about various factual aspects of each topic: Does the death penalty deter crime? Do condoms work to prevent pregnancy? Does embryonic stem cell research hold medical promise? And so on.

If you believe some act is absolutely wrong, period, you shouldn’t actually care about its costs and benefits. Those should be irrelevant to your moral judgment. Yet in analyzing the data, Liu and Ditto found a strong correlation, across all of the issues, between believing something is morally wrong in all case–such as the death penalty–and also believing that it has low benefits (e.g., doesn’t deter crime) or high costs (lots of innocent people getting executed). In other words, liberals and conservatives alike shaded their assessment of the facts so as to align them with their moral convictions–establishing what Liu and Ditto call a “moral coherence” between their ethical and factual views. Neither side was innocent when it came toconfusing “is” and “ought” (as moral philosophers might put it).

However, not everyone was equally susceptible to this behavior. Rather, the researchers found three risk factors, so to speak, that seem to worsen the standard human penchant for contorting the facts to one’s moral views. Two those were pretty unsurprising: Having a strong moral view about a topic makes one’s inclination towards “moral coherence” worse, as does knowing a lot about the subject (across studies, knowledge simply seems to make us better at maintaining and defending what we already believe). But the third risk factor is likely to prove quite controversial: political conservatism.

In the study, Liu and Ditto report, conservatives tilted their views of the facts to favor their moral convictions more than liberals did, on every single issue. And that was true whether it was a topic that liberals oppose (the death penalty) or that conservatives oppose (embryonic stem cell research). “Conservatives are doing this to a larger degree across four different issues,” Liu explained in an interview. “Including two that are leaning to the liberal side, not the conservative side.”
Click to expand...

Interesting stuff.
 
T

thefro

Member
PantherLotus said:
If you were Romney and couldn't change anything else up to this moment that you've already fucked up, what would you do?

Looks to me like they're pursuing a northern strategy, probably hoping to secure Wisconsin through brute force and Iowa and Michigan as a sphere-of-influence thing. PA is gone, but we knew that. Ohio has incredibly bad internals for you, and Florida looks like it could be slipping, and god knows about North Carolina.

I can see the idea going north, especially if he has a couple hundred million to blow through Super PAC proxy -- but in which reality can he not seriously contest all three of Ohio, Florida, North Carolina? Mind boggling.
Click to expand...

There is no possible map to Romney winning without one of Ohio/Florida/North Carolina, even if you gave him Virginia (which would definitely go to Obama if he won NC).
 
P

pigeon

Banned
PantherLotus said:
If you were Romney and couldn't change anything else up to this moment that you've already fucked up, what would you do?

Looks to me like they're pursuing a northern strategy, probably hoping to secure Wisconsin through brute force and Iowa and Michigan as a sphere-of-influence thing. PA is gone, but we knew that. Ohio has incredibly bad internals for you, and Florida looks like it could be slipping, and god knows about North Carolina.

I can see the idea going north, especially if he has a couple hundred million to blow through Super PAC proxy -- but in which reality can he not seriously contest all three of Ohio, Florida, North Carolina? Mind boggling.
Click to expand...

Romney's new strategy is basically the Northern Southern Strategy -- hold on to the Confederate vote and try to grab as much of farm country as he can with a mixture of values-baiting and Reaganesque distrust of government. Wisconsin is 83% white, 71% born in Wisconsin; Iowa 91%, 72% respectively. No-college whites are Romney's entire base now, so they're much better for him than Florida (57.9% white, 33% (!) born in Florida) or even North Carolina (65%, 58%).

Unfortunately, he really needs Michigan and Ohio to make it work. He more or less torpedoed his own campaign with that op-ed about General Motors, but it's only now that we can see the damage above the waterline. Alternatively, thank God for the remnants of the American labor movement -- and for Joe Biden, most likely.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
Princeton Election Consortium is predicting dems have a 69% chance at taking the house
http://election.princeton.edu/2012/08/30/house-outlook-2012-take-1/
Click to expand...
Aww-Yeah-meme.png


Tim-E said:
This morning's Daily Rundown. He said that their goal is to swap OH with WI. For Romney to win without Ohio, he needs Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida. I don't think it's realistic for his campaign to expect every single one of those.
Click to expand...
Mark Halperin had a good piece about this recently, saying how high the deck is stacked against Romney. If Obama wins Ohio, Virginia or Florida, he's probably won the election - and he has a path to victory even without those (NV/IA/CO/NM/Kerry states). But if Romney has to give up one of those states he has no path to victory.

Basically Romney has to run the tables in order to win, whereas Obama just needs to hold onto the Democratic coalition and pick off one of the swing states.

The RNC was supposed to give him momentum going into the election (after Labor Day is when it counts!) and he blew it by hiring a pathological liar as his running mate and having his mystery guest be an old man yelling at a chair. Now Obama gets to enjoy a DNC bounce when he doesn't even really need one, since he's already in the lead.
 
X

XenodudeX

Junior Member
Lets all give Martin O'Malley an applause for giving Republicans a new talking point.

When you are asked "Are you better off 4 years ago", YOU. SAY. YES.
 
A

Averon

Member
Even if Romney gives up OH for WI and IA--and him winning those two states are far from certain--he's still down 2 electoral votes. He would need to win another state to make up the difference. Winning three swings states to make up for OH is a ridiculously tall order.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
pigeon said:
Unfortunately, he really needs Michigan and Ohio to make it work. He more or less torpedoed his own campaign with that op-ed about General Motors, but it's only now that we can see the damage above the waterline. Alternatively, thank God for the remnants of the American labor movement -- and for Joe Biden, most likely.
Click to expand...
This is why I'd be cool with Biden running for a term after Obama, assuming Obama's second term goes well. Biden has an appeal to white working class voters that Obama doesn't - whether it's because Obama's black, or too liberal, or inexperienced, whatever. I could see him romping in Ohio or Pennsylvania for that reason.
 
T

Tim-E

Member
Aaron Strife said:
This is why I'd be cool with Biden running for a term after Obama, assuming Obama's second term goes well. Biden has an appeal to white working class voters that Obama doesn't - whether it's because Obama's black, or too liberal, or inexperienced, whatever. I could see him romping in Ohio or Pennsylvania for that reason.
Click to expand...

Biden is awesome. If he decided to run I'd support him over any of the other potential 2016 candidates without hesitation.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
Aaron Strife said:
Aww-Yeah-meme.png



Mark Halperin had a good piece about this recently, saying how high the deck is stacked against Romney. If Obama wins Ohio, Virginia or Florida, he's probably won the election - and he has a path to victory even without those (NV/IA/CO/NM/Kerry states). But if Romney has to give up one of those states he has no path to victory.

Basically Romney has to run the tables in order to win, whereas Obama just needs to hold onto the Democratic coalition and pick off one of the swing states.

The RNC was supposed to give him momentum going into the election (after Labor Day is when it counts!) and he blew it by hiring a pathological liar as his running mate and having his mystery guest be an old man yelling at a chair. Now Obama gets to enjoy a DNC bounce when he doesn't even really need one, since he's already in the lead.
Click to expand...

My supposedly politically savvy brother-in-law is still swearing that Romney is going to win, and he pooh-poohs my Electoral College argument. I wonder how many conservatives would be shocked at the relative electoral ease with which Obama wins?

Even over at FreeRepublic, they swear up and down that Romney's the favorite. I don't really get it. Did we on the left look like that in 2004 when we were backing Kerry?
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Aaron Strife said:
This is why I'd be cool with Biden running for a term after Obama, assuming Obama's second term goes well. Biden has an appeal to white working class voters that Obama doesn't - whether it's because Obama's black, or too liberal, or inexperienced, whatever. I could see him romping in Ohio or Pennsylvania for that reason.
Click to expand...

I like Biden a lot, but if Secretary Clinton is going to face concerns about being too old, be aware that in 2016 Joe Biden will be 73 -- and Reagan was only pushing 70. (Hillary will be 68.) I'm hoping this convention or the next four years introduces us to some younger capable Democrats, because aside from Obama, every major Democratic figure that I can think of is still from Clinton's generation or earlier.
 
C

Cheebo

Banned
pigeon said:
I like Biden a lot, but if Secretary Clinton is going to face concerns about being too old, be aware that in 2016 Joe Biden will be 73 -- and Reagan was only pushing 70. (Hillary will be 68.) I'm hoping this convention or the next four years introduces us to some younger capable Democrats, because aside from Obama, every major Democratic figure that I can think of is still from Clinton's generation or earlier.
Click to expand...

Martin O'Malley & Andrew Cuomo wil dominate the 2016 field if Hillary doesn't run. They are big rising stars in the party.

Cuomo will likely be very hard to beat in the primaries. He has been preparing for 2016 for a while.
 
G

Gruco

Banned
HylianTom said:
My supposedly politically savvy brother-in-law is still swearing that Romney is going to win, and he pooh-poohs my Electoral College argument. I wonder how many conservatives would be shocked at the relative electoral ease with which Obama wins?

Even over at FreeRepublic, they swear up and down that Romney's the favorite. I don't really get it. Did we on the left look like that in 2004 when we were backing Kerry?
Click to expand...

To some extent I think we did. There was a lot of talk about cell phone voters and undecideds breaking and whatnot to justify it, and the more complex poll aggregation analysts hadn't yet gained the popularity they have now.

Beyond that, the left just hated Bush so much that is was "obvious" that Kerry would win. The empirics just weren't part of the equation. I imagine that what a lot of those convinced of Romney's victory are going through.

======

Ryan Lizza has a good new article about the Obama/Clinton relationship and its role in the election

Obama had found a way to capitalize on an unusual political development. In an effort to sell deficit reduction, many Republicans have been extolling the former President’s legacy. Even Mitt Romney has presented Clinton as a responsible centrist and a champion of welfare reform, unlike Obama. “Almost a generation ago, Bill Clinton announced that the era of big government was over,” Romney said earlier this year, trying to magnify divisions between the two Presidents. “President Obama tucked away the Clinton doctrine in his large drawer of discarded ideas, along with transparency and bipartisanship. It’s enough to make you wonder if maybe it was a personal beef with the Clintons, but really it runs much deeper.”

Former Representative Anthony Weiner, whose wife, Huma Abedin, is a top aide to Hillary Clinton, expressed surprise that the G.O.P. has conceded this ground. “Swing voters volunteer that under Clinton we had a big surplus,” he said. “So Clinton provides this perfect signpost in history for Obama. What’s fascinating to me is that the Republicans have seen it coming, understand it, and basically stipulate it. It’s one of those interesting moments when both sides aren’t fighting about whether it’s true.”
Click to expand...

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/09/10/120910fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=1
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Gruco said:
To some extent I think we did. There was a lot of talk about cell phone voters and undecideds breaking and whatnot to justify it, and the more complex poll aggregation analysts hadn't yet gained the popularity they have now.

Beyond that, the left just hated Bush so much that is was "obvious" that Kerry would win. The empirics just weren't part of the equation. I imagine that what a lot of those convinced of Romney's victory are going through.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this. Nobody argued that Kerry was a great candidate, but a lot of people were utterly convinced that only a lunatic could vote for W again. A thought process that did not make losing any easier!
 
A

adamsappel

Member
Hitokage said:
Offending passage by Fareed Zakaria:

Corresponding passage by Jill Lepore:

Both properly cite Adam Winkler.
Click to expand...
I expected something a little more egregious than that. I thought there'd be some copied prose, but that just reads like a sloppy rewrite of some wiki facts. Zakaria deserves to be raked over the coals for it, but that's not worthy of a career-ender.

AniHawk said:
heh. vouchercare. have they been using that or is that just biden?
Click to expand...

"Vouchercare." That is damning, and it can stick if they use it enough.
 
D

Drakeon

Member
I'm still in disbelief Romney could be this bad at running a campaign. There is no way you can justify giving up on Ohio when it is basically the only way you can win (same goes for Florida). I'd like to believe its true, but until I see more sources, I'll remain cautious.
 
P

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
Drakeon said:
I'm still in disbelief Romney could be this bad at running a campaign. There is no way you can justify giving up on Ohio when it is basically the only way you can win (same goes for Florida). I'd like to believe its true, but until I see more sources, I'll remain cautious.
Click to expand...

He's probably betting on Florida, mostly, because he can't win without Florida no matter what. He/his team must believe Ohio is optional.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
HylianTom said:
My supposedly politically savvy brother-in-law is still swearing that Romney is going to win, and he pooh-poohs my Electoral College argument. I wonder how many conservatives would be shocked at the relative electoral ease with which Obama wins?

Even over at FreeRepublic, they swear up and down that Romney's the favorite. I don't really get it. Did we on the left look like that in 2004 when we were backing Kerry?
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that watching Fox News with any sort of regularity makes you "politically savvy" to people who don't care.

pigeon said:
I like Biden a lot, but if Secretary Clinton is going to face concerns about being too old, be aware that in 2016 Joe Biden will be 73 -- and Reagan was only pushing 70. (Hillary will be 68.) I'm hoping this convention or the next four years introduces us to some younger capable Democrats, because aside from Obama, every major Democratic figure that I can think of is still from Clinton's generation or earlier.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's true that Biden will be old. I figure he'd only serve for one term though - he seems like the kind of guy who just wants to be president.

See, I had a dream once where I went into the future and saw that Obama wins a second term, Biden serves one term, and then hands it off to Cuomo, who serves a term but then sucks and loses re-election.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
There's a difference between "giving up" and thinking you could lose. Romney's camp gave up on PA for instance; they literally stopped spending money, visiting, etc. They have not done that in Ohio and have no plans to. The race is very close there and Romney can win simply due to white non-college workers there. Romney has to run up the score with that demographic, which is not an impossible feat

Iowa remains a lot closer than many assume. And then there is Wisconsin, plus Floridia remains close. This is far from over
 
J

Joe Shlabotnik

Banned
Biden would probably lose. I have no issues with him as VP or even as President if it were necessary but I don't see him engendering much excitement. He was a very safe VP pick, which was the point.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
There's a difference between "giving up" and thinking you could lose. Romney's camp gave up on PA for instance; they literally stopped spending money, visiting, etc. They have not done that in Ohio and have no plans to. The race is very close there and Romney can win simply due to white non-college workers there. Romney has to run up the score with that demographic, which is not an impossible feat

Iowa remains a lot closer than many assume. And then there is Wisconsin, plus Floridia remains close. This is far from over
Click to expand...
That almost sounds like a threat!
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
Perhaps the reason there's not been a Gallup bounce.

b9jv057joueekewa97r6cq.gif


Romney's acceptance speech this year scored low by comparison to previous convention speeches going back to 1996. Thirty-eight percent of Americans rated the speech as excellent or good, while 16% rated it as poor or terrible. The 38% who rated the speech as excellent or good is the lowest rating of any of the eight speeches Gallup has tested since Bob Dole's GOP acceptance speech in 1996.
Click to expand...

slcvq1sia0iz0ayvese3zg.gif


The net impact of each convention can be calculated by subtracting the percentage who said the convention made them less likely to vote for the party's nominee from the percentage saying it made them more likely to vote for him. This year, the net impact of the GOP convention was +2. This compares with +5 and +3 for the GOP conventions in 2008 and 2004, respectively.
Click to expand...

Both lows in the polling history.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

[GI.biz] Cheap money and bad bets: How the games industry turned pandemic success into disaster
2
75
3K
sharp weiner replied
  • Poll
Palworld has, once again, highlighted the on going deficiencies in PC Game Pass and the Xbox app on Windows 11 (Windows Central)
Hardware Platform 2 3
111
13K
Unknown Soldier replied
Suicide Squad: Kill The Justice League |OT| Sent to Die
18 19 20 21 22
1K
67K
T-0800 replied
[PC Gamer] How Cyberpunk 2077 clawed its way back from disaster to complete one of the greatest redemption arcs in gaming history
Opinion News 2
99
8K
EDMIX replied
[Verge] Google canceled its next Pixelbook and shut down the team building it
News Business
48
3K
01011001 replied
Top Bottom