I'm uncertain, actually. That chart was from one of his articles that I haven't read thoroughly. A recent analysis by different scholars utilized data extending to the 50s and found similar results.
-
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
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
Uh, because most Americans vote on election day?
The polling from the last few days is not going to be quite as relevant after last night's debate, I fear. Things should be looking pretty interesting in the next several days.
Diablos said:
Besides the chart posted in response, I think you oughta consider this to be more like Kerry/Bush than Reagan/Carter, and even then you have to tweak it. Kerry fucking destroyed Bush in the debates. Flat out. Bush still won, because of Ohio.
Now, consider Obama - much better favorables than Bush, infinitely easier path to 270 than Romney, no swiftboaters and didn't lose nearly as bad to his debate opponent as Bush did. A second life? More like a pulse, and yeah, Obama's gotta come out and do better to match it, but Romney's already got stuff he's gotta worry about. He just promoted Vouchers again while trying to keep a hold of Florida. And just because he wasn't as bad as he was at his own convention doesn't mean he's given himself the mantle of "the better candidate". Takes more than a night to undo a shitty month like he just had, and now comes the part his campaign has repeatedly failed: actually defending those policies, many of which aren't going to get any more popular just because he promoted them again. Just because the debates are going on doesn't mean he can stop campaigning, and until proven otherwise, he and his team are still awful at that.
Aaron Strife
Banned
So long as Diablos is here to remind us that we're all going to die, it'll never go away.
Early voting is becoming more and more the norm.Diablos said:
eBay Huckster
Member
It somehow needs to be made the background of PoliGAF for the next 3 weeks
Also, on the subject of early voting...
Also, raw numbers: 16% voted early in 2000, 22% in 2004, 31% in 2008.
And it's higher this year.
Okay, it's true, it's not exactly the same as Carter/Reagan, but it's true that Carter was expected to school Reagan with his debate style, but in reality the Gipper came out of nowhere and far exceeded everyone's expectations.
Bush/Kerry is probably the most valid, but then again 2004 was more about war/defense/terrorism whereas 2012 is about the economy and to a lesser extent healthcare. Romney is looking to gain some traction with what this election is primarily about thanks to his unexpected performance. So I'm not sure how much faith we can put into this comparison.
I can't see how you guys can't at least be seriously disappointed in Obama if nothing else. This debate should have been a walk in the park. It was painful to sit through his fumbles.
Bush/Kerry is probably the most valid, but then again 2004 was more about war/defense/terrorism whereas 2012 is about the economy and to a lesser extent healthcare. Romney is looking to gain some traction with what this election is primarily about thanks to his unexpected performance. So I'm not sure how much faith we can put into this comparison.
It's not the norm yet though, and if the vast majority of Americans (in swing states) are still voting on election day, then there's plenty of chances for Mitt to continue to capitalize on his unexpected victory last night.Aaron Strife said:
I can't see how you guys can't at least be seriously disappointed in Obama if nothing else. This debate should have been a walk in the park. It was painful to sit through his fumbles.
titiklabingapat
Member
snip
Officerrob
Banned
This is without question, it's just that everyone isn't being all chicken little about it
Aaron Strife
Banned
Yeah, this cake is baked.
Romney can still win, the problem is his debate performance isn't such a crushing victory that he'd win every undecided, and even if he did he'd have to cut into Obama's support in many states to actually win, such as Ohio.
And don't even fucking tell me Romney can win without Ohio.
I'd say ~40% of Ohio voting early is pretty significant. Obviously it's not happening in every state, but then again there are only 7 states that actually matter.Diablos said:
Yeah, Obama didn't bring his A-game, but I don't think he needed to.
eBay Huckster
Member
If early voting has Obama up, say, 54-46, and early voters constitute 40% of the electorate, then Romney has to literally swing that around 14 points with same-day voters in order to win a popular vote majority.
I don't think I need to tell you the odds of that happening.
I'm reminded of the Bible story where Jesus calmed the storm on the lake. He was napping while a great storm nearly inundated the boat with water. Frightened by the experience, the apostles ran to Jesus begging him to calm the storm. He commanded the winds and rain to be still, and the apostles were amazed. He admonished them for their lack of faith.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Would reinforce my personal theory that Obama is actually Jesus.
Which apostle are you ?
eBay Huckster
Member
titiklabingapat
Member
Quick and dirty
He probably can't, but Ohio could be back in play.
It is no doubt significant, but 40% is far from over.
He didn't need to bring his A game but he needed to look like a President. He didn't. He got schooled (well, not in the literal sense but when it comes to perception it looks that way) by Mitt Romney, the guy who is supposed to be the worst candidate since Mondale. Like I said in my post, he didn't need to have his best debate performance ever, he just had to at a minimum not fuck up as bad as Romney. He couldn't even pull that off. To dismiss that is silly, it's going to cost Obama in some capacity, how badly we can't say for sure yet. But I wouldn't assume it's going to just be +1-3 Romney. It could be more. This was a bad, bad, bad situation for Obama to get himself into.
Judas
Black Mamba
Member
??
Obama only performed poorly in the beginning, really. Romney got hurt by Medicare vouchers and anything after that didn't matter much.
eBay Huckster
Member
Trust me on this, because I'm smack in the middle of Columbus and have tons of friends in every major city in the state: it would literally take a video revealing Obama to secretly be the co-founder of Bain Capital while literally shitting all over a model of Detroit to put Ohio back in play at this point.
It's not going to be a blowout, but it's also getting called near-instantly.
Judas
I'd say the Denial is a bit more apt of a metaphor here
Officerrob
Banned
For me, the real frustrating part came when they got to healthcare and Obama refused to counter Romney's "he's robbing Medicare of $716 billion" even after Romney says it numerous times.
Wait for what?
eBay Huckster
Member
Wait for Big Bird.
(If that hadn't already been touched upon by about 40-45 minutes.)
Combine that with the state polling and you get your answer. Obama's got an overall general trust advantage over Romney, and with early voting rolling out in many states a lot of that's locked in. Even with where Romney leads in the economy, Obama's leading with a lot of stuff that's extremely important, namely taxes and medicare. This was only last week, btw.
I agree with you that he needs to come correct in his next debate, but that's more to keep the base excited. Romney didn't really radically change his campaign at all, nor did Obama, so from here on out it's just picking off a few voters here and there unless somebody completely shits the bed.
Look at Brown in MA. Everyone said the same kind of thing. The state cares too much for Democrats. The voters in key counties are way too engaged. There's no way, "trust us". He won regardless.
You can only be so dismissive about Obama's performance here. We all know damn well he was within range of smacking Mitt's smarmy ass down for good, and he blew it. That's nothing to shrug off, even if there's disagreement as to how badly he fucked up -- he still fucked up, and Mitt did not.
I don't disagree with you too much here, but that image may not be accurate anymore. Obama could have lost some credibility with many of those issues because Mitt really hammered away at them without taking much damage for doing so. The snapshot polls are not an encouraging sign, hopefully they were plagued by a lot of noise and not sound statistics.
Combine that with the state polling and you get your answer. Obama's got an overall general trust advantage over Romney, and with early voting rolling out in many states a lot of that's locked in. Even with where Romney leads in the economy, Obama's leading with a lot of stuff that's extremely important, namely taxes and medicare. This was only last week, btw.
I agree with you that he needs to come correct in his next debate, but that's more to keep the base excited. Romney didn't really radically change his campaign at all, nor did Obama, so from here on out it's just picking off a few voters here and there unless somebody completely shits the bed.
After digesting it some I'd say people are saying Romney won because he managed to go 60 minutes without any major flubs painting him as an out of touch rich guy. He also took a page from the Obama playbook and whipped out some some boilerplate anecdotes from voters to show he "cares." He bucked the media narrative and any time you can show voters who only know you from how others have defined you that you are more than a caricature that's a win for you (This is the same reason Obama's favorables go up when he gives a big speech and people can see he's not the reanimated corpse of Stalin).
The Obama strategy was probably to wait for Romney to hang himself, but it just never happened and as a consequence Obama seemed to be just treading water. Obama also seemed to be taken aback by Romney's ability to completely change his position on so many issues and lie with such conviction. It seems the only position Romney ever has is the one he thinks you want to hear, as soon as you leave the room he'll tell the next guy something else (hence the 47% video).
The Obama strategy was probably to wait for Romney to hang himself, but it just never happened and as a consequence Obama seemed to be just treading water. Obama also seemed to be taken aback by Romney's ability to completely change his position on so many issues and lie with such conviction. It seems the only position Romney ever has is the one he thinks you want to hear, as soon as you leave the room he'll tell the next guy something else (hence the 47% video).
Yeah, I have no idea why he didn't bother addressing that. But that's probably the most egregious offense so far.
I was so upset at work the person next to me (who had no idea what I was listening to) thought I was getting mad at her for some reason.
I couldn't fucking believe how Obama missed the opportunity time and time again to smack that down. They've been floating the counterpoint since Ryan marched down those steps in Virginia ffs. How could he have not remembered to say that? How?
It makes me think we're giving Obama too much credit for what he's "learned" about being politically savvy over the past four years, and is still suffering from leftover rookie tendencies.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Romney "won" but I don't think Obama was weak. You can lose a debate without being utterly destroyed.
Hour in, and yeah Obama's definitely not being "destroyed" by any means, aside from a few missed opportunities here and there.
At the part with financial regulation, and holy shit, if I didn't know the kind of person Mitt is, I'd think he was actually a LEGITIMATE moderate Republican.
Yeah, man. You can get written up for the third and final time with no further exceptions at work but still have a job.
Yeah, he just talks the part and if you're clueless, it's really easy to fall into the trap.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I'm a good work guy so I usually get written up for bullshit reasons, and then I quit.Yeah, man. You can get written up for the third and final time with no further exceptions at work but still have a job.
So what you're saying is Barack should have stepped down for Hillary.
Black Mamba
Member
One thing we learned is the left still has no idea how to work properly. Reverse the rolls and does Fox News come out screaming about how Romney lost the debate? Of course not. They'd do everything in their power to sell out for their boy.
MSNBC and liberal commentators should have said Obama won clearly by using facts and staying calm while Romney just lied. They'd be wrong, but they're hurting the Obama narrative by claiming he lost, as well.
Fox News and the GOP have no qualms with bold-faced lies. Liberals still don't seem to get that.
MSNBC and liberal commentators should have said Obama won clearly by using facts and staying calm while Romney just lied. They'd be wrong, but they're hurting the Obama narrative by claiming he lost, as well.
Fox News and the GOP have no qualms with bold-faced lies. Liberals still don't seem to get that.
Hahaha, no. I'm saying that Obama really messed up. You think it's just a small dent, I think it's fairly significant and he can't afford to do it again. Given the ignorance of Axelrod and co., I'm not confident he will bounce back. I don't know if his people even give a shit.
Look, the reason WHY I think this is such a big deal is because everyone left, right, and center thought Mitt was doomed. Completely. This debate was going to seal the deal and solidify Obama as the frontrunner. Instead, Obama looked weaker than Romney and thus Romney won. Sure, he still looked like a douchebag, even if he technically won -- but the fact is, he won, when he was supposed to look like a moron and be put away for good. That was the expectation, it did not happen. He was doing so poorly that this was supposed to just put the final nail in the coffin while Obama would employ a cool but caring demeanor at the town hall debate and obviously have a good time with foreign policy. This changes the dynamic though.
So if you want to look at it as a political junkie, sure, it was basically a tit-for-tat where Romney had a edge. But most voters won't see it that way. They'll read about the narrative that Romney made a "comeback" when he was just a day prior destined to fail.
Black Mamba
Member
You sound like a conservative circa 2004. I was right then and I'll be right now.
voters still mostly vote on issues. He might win a few undecideds, but it won't matter enough. As much as we like to turn this into sports, people vote for those that relate to their perspectives more or against the last guy who fucked them over. No one is going to vote for Mitt since he's a feisty underdog. The narrative is fun and all, but in the end people will remember Bush and how Mitt is Bush II in economic policy so far.
edit: Also, I think the campaign will use the voucher stuff in ads and that will hurt him, especially in Florida. And when debate 2 comes up and abortion and other things come up, expect the narrative to switch.
Clinton at the convention sealed the deal more than anything these debates can do.
Bounce back from what? It wasn't 50-50 before the debate. It was like 70-30. Now it's like 65-35. People can cite the 50-45 (or whatever) popular vote polls they have going on, but what matters is the electoral college. If Obama could somehow win 20% of the popular vote and got 270 EVs, he'd still be President. Romney has no easy path to winning. In fact it's nearly impossible unless some states get flipped upside down or shift dramatically in favor of Romney. That's why noone cares.
Really? I kind of felt the same way they did, minus the Hardball pitch.
All I know is Obama had his weakest debate ever. I am not confident he will be able to tweak his strategy enough to make a difference for the town hall, but by default he should do better talking to people. But, nothing surprises me now.
I'd shy away from saying it's only gone from 70-30 to 65-35 or whatever until there's more data. The polls reflecting this debate that we'll be having our eyes glued to this week and next could have a lot more movement than anticipated.
Black Mamba
Member
I'm gonna pull an Obama and whiff on this opening, here.
Nice. Obama called out Romney on him trying to trick people into assuming he supports pre-existing conditions.
Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you people?
I was shocked when I saw Matthews having a meltdown. I was coming into this expecting a Libya moment for an hour and a half. Nothing even comes close to that.
Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you people?
I was shocked when I saw Matthews having a meltdown. I was coming into this expecting a Libya moment for an hour and a half. Nothing even comes close to that.
Before I forget: Romney talking about his Monday meetings with Democrats in MA -- totally Reaganesque, holy shit. Like he practiced the line 500 times and stealth worked it in to conversation. It was impressive.
The criticism extends far beyond PoliGAF, my friend. And far beyond GOPers.
Black Mamba
Member
This is a theme by Romney say whatever he wants to say to make things seem better, let the campaign take it back retroactively.
Obama did go on it, but he should have asked him directly "So if I don't have insurance and I have a pre-existing condition, under a president Romney, I'd get insurance and how?"
Obama ignored Mitt too much for my liking (for someone who was attacking him).
Really?
This shit again.
I swear, every four years political wonks try telling people that X guy won because he was the aggressor, he controlled the debate, etc. etc.. Damn near every time they wind up having that narrative rejected by the American people.
Average voters do not understand the ivy league competitive debate concept, they instead see this as a chance for the two candidates to present their plans going forward to the American people directly.
Think about what the two candidates actually said.
Obama:
1. need more teachers, invest in schools and community colleges.
2. here's some of the good things I've done.
3. I think we need to protect the middle class.
Romney:
1. I'm not going to actually cut federal revenue at all, despite lowering tax rates.
2. large portions of Obama care are good.
3. I will repeal Obamacare day one.
4. I want to be bi-partisan and that is why I won't tell you anything, but everything this democratic president said has to go.
The first and foremost key point here is that Romney just created the advertising campaign for the Obama team for the rest of the election. His lies can be set directly opposite previous statements nearly across the board and ran in swing state after swing state.
Next, Obama painted the narrative he needed. Where is Romney's plan? What is it? Why won't he tell anyone? It paints Romney as unwilling to lead, as someone who will let other republicans set the tone for his presidency. He then presented a worthwhile, compassionate counterpoint.
Did Obama pass up chances to strike back more aggressively? Sure. But to what end? To land a few "zingers"? He let Romney have some room to work and I'd say it payed off. Romney didn't come across as more likable or more relate-able. He came across as highly aggressive and that was by far the dominant trait.
Obama's passivity effectively resulted in Romney spending the entire debate as an aggressive but unspecific candidate who is only interested in attacking the current POTUS, not giving a true outline on how he's going to improve the economy.
Oh, I know. But they're exaggerating as well, I think.
Rocket Scientist
Member
I'm hoping we see some Obama truth team videos today, though it's probably too fast. Maybe this weekend.
Because you're way too far inside the echo chamber and thought Obama could come out and just end Romney's chances in a single debate.
That wasn't going to happen. The GOP is still nearly half of all affiliated voters in this country, Romney still has a ton of money, and it's still a two party system.
The big end result of this debate will be seen in advertising going forward. If Obama's team rolls out advertisements directly calling Romney out on his lies, showing previous comments off-set by his complete flip flops at the debate, he will paint Romney as someone willing to say anything to win, who can't be trusted. That's the big key here. Obama wasn't going to just kill Romney's political career last night, but he now has all the ammo he needs to kill him in Florida with flip flops on vouchers and existing conditions. Same goes for other swing states. Romney might have "won" the debate narrative but he handed Obama boxes of bullets to use going forward, and he did so without showing himself to be more likable, setting a memorable new tone, or giving any kind of resonant specifics to the American people.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll