On his best day Romney can't produce even an internal poll that shows him winning Ohio. (Or NH or Wisconsin.)
-
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 |OT4|: Your job is not to worry about 47% of these posts.
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
- Status
On his best day Romney can't produce even an internal poll that shows him winning Ohio. (Or NH or Wisconsin.)
do we have any internal polls from romney in the past? maybe from the primaries? i just want to compare accuracy.
Wow, my dad is sure living in the bubble. He said to me that whatever happens the difference is if his guy doesn't win his side will just go on and it'll be another day after the election, but if my guy doesn't win so many people will be rioting in the streets. He's asked me if I'd seen the blogs about it. I laughed and was like "Uh... yeah, have you seen the people in the south with nooses and stuff?" He just said no, but he'd like to know where I saw that sort of stuff, because he wouldn't mind it.
Still, so fucking crazy to me. Obviously there will be people pissed off to high heavens on either side.
Still, so fucking crazy to me. Obviously there will be people pissed off to high heavens on either side.
Where is your dad from?
Small town in Wisconsin.
makingmusic476
Member
Ah, the right wing bubble.
Guess the crazies come from everywhere these days.
Dude Abides
Banned
Yeah, the campaign had contempt for yard signs in 2008 also. I don't know, it seemed to me that a bunch of people came into the field office just to get a yard sign and you could try to sign me up for field work or phone banking t that point. I also do think there must be some value in having a visual reminder that your neighbors also support your candidate.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
It's amazing how similar this is to 2004, except with a better outcome of course 
Yep, if you are undecided and totally ignorant when it comes to politics but everyone in your neighborhood has Romney signs, and no one has Obama signs, that has to make an impact if you are considering driving out to the polls on election day.
I'm not sure. Again, any time you see a campaign internal you should remember that the campaign had some vested interest in you seeing it, so I wouldn't necessarily expect Obama to win Ohio by 7. But it's telling that Romney's best possible narrative is "we're soooo close to not losing by default."
Here are some things you should expect to see whether or not Romney has a chance in Ohio:
* Romney campaigning in Ohio. Obviously, because if the only possible way to win is to assume the polls are wrong and you can win Ohio, then you'd better assume that and act on that assumption. This also explains why Romney folks keep turning up in Pennsylvania. (It's worth remembering, though, that Romney's largest bundling group is a network of clinics in Pennsylvania, so they're basically obligated to make a few appearances.)
* Romney surrogates asserting that Romney will win Ohio.
* Polls showing that Romney is "keeping it close" in Ohio or "has momentum," in which Obama has a lead that's narrower than other polls.
Here are some telltale signs that Romney doesn't actually have a chance:
* No actual polls showing Romney leading, except perhaps from the absolute worst pollsters (Gravis, Baydoun Foster, ARG).
* Those Romney surrogates going on unprompted to explain how Romney will win even if he DOESN'T win Ohio.
* SuperPACs unexpectedly changing their behavior in the last week now that they're confident Romney won't win ( http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82613.html )
I don't think you understand human beings.
virginia: no early voting
florida: starts october 29
colorado: starts october 22
wisconsin: starts october 22
new hampshire: no early voting
michigan: no early voting
pennsylvania: no early voting
a week before the election doesn't give ofa much time in florida, but it is possible to pull it off, especially if they can narrow down the overall poll average from +2.1 romney to something more of a tie.
colorado is currently a tie, and ofa's apparently primed to bank a ton of early votes there. it's key in the nv+ia+co+nh plan.
new hampshire and virginia are concerning, since neither allow early voting. i think romney will win virginia, and may eke out a win in new hampshire. neither side seems to be paying much attention to nh, but romney's focusing more on it as of late.
wisconsin will probably start to be locked away starting tomorrow. i don't think michigan and pennsylvania are going to be problematic.
florida: starts october 29
colorado: starts october 22
wisconsin: starts october 22
new hampshire: no early voting
michigan: no early voting
pennsylvania: no early voting
a week before the election doesn't give ofa much time in florida, but it is possible to pull it off, especially if they can narrow down the overall poll average from +2.1 romney to something more of a tie.
colorado is currently a tie, and ofa's apparently primed to bank a ton of early votes there. it's key in the nv+ia+co+nh plan.
new hampshire and virginia are concerning, since neither allow early voting. i think romney will win virginia, and may eke out a win in new hampshire. neither side seems to be paying much attention to nh, but romney's focusing more on it as of late.
wisconsin will probably start to be locked away starting tomorrow. i don't think michigan and pennsylvania are going to be problematic.
To accommodate 45 minutes of discussion on the Middle East, not counting Benghazi, tomorrow's debate will omit many important topics. One topic that will be unfortunately ignored is arms control. It might be broached during the discussion on Russia...wait, they're ignoring Russia? That's odd considering they're our primary geopolitical foe. Anyway, Pifer and O'Hanlon wrote an op-ed on the topic last week. They raise a few pertinent challenges awaiting Obama's second term.
First, Russia's stockpile of TNWs is problematic. They recommend negotiating reductions in both tactical and strategic platforms. I'm doubtful Russia would accede to reductions in tactical platforms, so any attempt will likely prove fruitless. Our overwhelming advantage in conventional weapons compels them to seek non-conventional safeguards. But there's no risk in attempting to negotiate. However, if talks fail, we should unilaterally remove our remaining stockpile. They're expensive weapons without strategic value. Second, the CTBT is worth pursuing. It's been mentioned as a possible priority for his second term. Ratification will be difficult given Republican intransigence. But it's worth pursuing.
First, Russia's stockpile of TNWs is problematic. They recommend negotiating reductions in both tactical and strategic platforms. I'm doubtful Russia would accede to reductions in tactical platforms, so any attempt will likely prove fruitless. Our overwhelming advantage in conventional weapons compels them to seek non-conventional safeguards. But there's no risk in attempting to negotiate. However, if talks fail, we should unilaterally remove our remaining stockpile. They're expensive weapons without strategic value. Second, the CTBT is worth pursuing. It's been mentioned as a possible priority for his second term. Ratification will be difficult given Republican intransigence. But it's worth pursuing.
thank you for the insight.
the language in that last article is fucking frightening. people talking about the return on their investment, like buying gop seats is a business venture.
Another devastating ad. Yeesh, they're good at making him look horrible.
powell was the best part.
also, never get tired of mitt's seething rage simmering beneath the surface when crowley corrects him.
It was indeed a "FFFFFFUUUUUUUUUU-----" moment.
Maybe this might deserve its own thread but I think I really need to know at this point: What is the difference between the current Republican "cut the deficit" plan and European-style Austerity?
I just read a USA Today article about a recent London anti-austerity protest basically complaining about Britain's current "right-leaning" government doing a lot of the stuff we think American Republicans are trying to do - cutting taxes on the wealthy, cutting back public spending, etc. I know they're trying this in other European countries (I can't remember which), and I know that a lot of people have complained that it simply isn't improving the economy.
Why haven't comparisons been publicly drawn between the Republican plan and that Austerity? Are they simply that incompatible? What am I missing here?
I just read a USA Today article about a recent London anti-austerity protest basically complaining about Britain's current "right-leaning" government doing a lot of the stuff we think American Republicans are trying to do - cutting taxes on the wealthy, cutting back public spending, etc. I know they're trying this in other European countries (I can't remember which), and I know that a lot of people have complained that it simply isn't improving the economy.
Why haven't comparisons been publicly drawn between the Republican plan and that Austerity? Are they simply that incompatible? What am I missing here?
cartoon_soldier
Member
To start with, Republican plan won't cut the deficit.
The superpacs article was interesting. I have definitely noticed an uptic in their spending for anti Obama ads. I think they went a little crazy after Romney had the good debate. Good for the senate and house that they did although they might be moving back now that romneys chances aren't looking good.
Even people in this thread are convinced that Romney has a good shot. Those conservative donors are probably easier to please.
Favoring the many over the special few is actually literally the opposite of his chosen philosophy.
makingmusic476
Member
I draw these comparisons ALL THE TIME with my family. The 1-2 that have the faintest idea of what I'm talking about just go "Do you wanna end up like Greece!?"
...well no. Hence why austerity's a bad idea. -_-
even better!
what a night it would be if obama lost iowa, ohio, colorado, new hampshire, and virginia, and eked out a measly few-thousand vote win in florida.
cartoon_soldier
Member
We don't want the Election to be this close...that's all. If we go into last week with Ohio Polls showing O+3 at or above 50% I will be pleased.
The best I am hoping for tomorrow is just how Romney qualified himself in the eyes of the people to be President, he disqualifies himself in the eyes of the people to handle foreign policy tomorrow.
Well even Better then if they want to use all of their money against Obama.
Right, a lot of these people just don't understand economics. To them they feel like Europe got into this mess because of spending way too much, and thus had to swallow this hard pill. To them austerity is necessary because of their spending habits. They don't see that the opposite would be the better approach, because it's hard for them to wrap their minds around spending = less deficit in the long run. They think of it like a household. You get into money problems, well, fuck, you have to cut things even if you want them.
In fact a lot of these people bring up Europe as an attack on Obama and the left. They say "You see Europe? If we keep going this way we'll end up like Greece," as you said.
Basically, it's just really hard to explain how their situation was brought about by something entirely unlike our current situation (they gave up their monetary sovereignty), but how austerity they've put themselves into in response to it is in turn like what Republicans want to do.
The other thing is that the Republican base fervently believes that, but you can tell the higher ups and even Romney himself knows you need to government spend in order to get out of a recession. He's just pulling a switcheroo on his base and spending in defense and hoping they don't realize it's actually Keynesianism.
Okay so I just looked up Greece and austerity and ended up with a UN article about how the second package might infringe on basic human rights by privatizing a lot of the social services.
Once again I ask: has anyone in the news or anywhere in the US publicly compared these austerity measures to what might be attempted over here? If not, why not?
cartoon_soldier
Member
He needs to give one for 2012... preferably tomorrow before the debate. Or after.
Frank the Great
Banned
both parties here are on the austerity bandwagon, hoping to use fear-mongering about the deficit to obtain policy goals that they are too scared to push otherwise. republicans are using this opportunity to push through an agenda that involves gutting social programs, firing government workers, and eliminating tax deductions that only benefit middle and lower class folk . democrats are attempting to raise taxes on the rich and cut the military, both of which have long been policy goals that they were too terrified to pursue in other political environments.
both parties are generally on the same page though, which is why neither has an interest in pointing to the UK's example of austerity. and i'm sure the top policymakers in each party realize the deficit thing is just a vehicle for each side to push their agenda.
Bel Marduk
Banned
It's on the 27th and I plan to take as many people with me to the polls as my car can fit.
makingmusic476
Member
I usually go through great lengths explaining why, unlike Greece, we cannot go bankrupt, and further why austerity only exacerbates deficits and debt, as it depresses the economy and lowers tax revenue so much so that huge budget shortfalls remain even after significant cuts.
Edit:
And remember Biden's "gotcha!" moment during the debate, when he called out Ryan on stimulus spending? It's clear these people understand the effects government spending can have on an economy.
Because, again, people over here are stupid and think that austerity is necessary after spending too much. Again, they see this like a household budget. When you spend too much you have to cut spending a metric ton in order to get your financing straight. You don't look at a household budget and go "Wow this spending cuts suck, and we're really hungry. Let's not do them." No, you don't think that, because they're necessary, instead you think "Goddamn maybe I shouldn't have spent everything like a dumbass so frivolously."
Economies don't work like that, but the common man thinks they do. That's the problem. And when you have to explain something you've already lost.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Actually, I think it is because American public believes the current path actually leads US to becoming like Europe. You see Republicans and conservatives invoke that all the time.
Only a few liberal economists point to Europe austerity and the fact that some of those countries entered a double dip to say WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU AMERICA! I have seen Krugman do that, Ezra Klein has done it.
Because we have control over our currency. We don't pull a gun on the world economy if 3 states in the union only pay 50 cents per dollar of tax revenue received.
So if most governments and parties are on the bandwagon of strategies that aren't really working, then where is this whole thing headed? I can't think of anyone who has something different in mind.
Is it in-person early voting?
DragonSworne
Banned
Shouldn't Job Creators be spending their money creating jobs instead of trying to get one man fired from one?
What could be especially effective: a commercial where he issues a warning that a Romney-Ryan term would essentially be a third Bush term - especially when it comes to a willingess to go to war.
Quickly numerate Obama's significant foreign policy accomplishments, and then show clip after clip of Romney and Ryan beating the drums.
Even folks who normally vote Republican are still very war-weary. They're tired of it, but another well-constructed reminder in the closing days of the campaign could be remarkably effective. remind them of how horrible it would be to go through another decade where Daddy or Mommy keeps going overseas for yet another tour of duty.
...
Just 15 nights away. 15 nights from now, PoliGAF's blood pressure will be much-improved. Euphoria will be the feeling of the evening. We'll get sloshed on Republican tears, and we'll be dreaming of new court appointees to be approved by our shiny, new, neutered-filibuster Senate.
In 2004, I remember knowing in the back of my mind that Kerry needed a miracle, hoping that the outlier polls were correct. Now? It feels good to be on the other side of that situation.
I think both parties say they are. I think realistically the right just found a particularly scary thing to beat Obama over the head with and it went crazy with the tea party, so now both sides have to talk about the debt as this big huge scary thing that's going to come and eat your children in the dead of the night.
As Frank said, both sides are using it now as a way to get some of their overall policies enacted. The left wants to cut bloated defense spending and raise taxes on the rich. The right wants to lower taxes overall (but especially on the rich), and gut government spending on entitlements.
At the same time they're doing that, I think both sides know they have to keep spending up in order to not lose jobs at this point. There have been numerous interviews with Romney on how cutting spending (defense in particular) will lose jobs. There was one he even admitted that cutting some spending could throw us technically back into recession because cutting government spending by that much is cutting GDP. That's part of why he wants the spending cuts. He knows he isn't going to pay for the whole thing, but he knows it'd probably help the economy enough.
This is also why their budgets don't actually cut much of the debt for years and years down the road. Both sides want to spend a bit now and hope that things work out in the classic way debt does; GDP goes up and things grow such that the debt as a percentage of GDP gets smaller, but the debt itself doesn't really. Just like we never really paid off WW2. That spending just doesn't matter much at all now because our GDP is so much.
The interesting problem will come up if Romney does indeed win, because, again, that hammer they've used to attack Obama on with the debt seems to have worked almost too well, and I can see some of the tea party republicans getting angry if he really doesn't reduce things. Then again perhaps their attention span is the size of a gerbil's if he actually gets the economy running again, and they'll just forget about it because he's not a black man...
Messaging problems.
Fundamentally, the ideas the American electorate have about most things take a long time to shift -- that's why the GOP being weak on national security is a big change. The Democrats are viewed as the party of "European socialism," so it's hard for them to compare Republicans to Europe -- Americans don't believe it even though it's true. Yet another legacy of Reagan. The actual economists do understand that Romney is the austerity candidate, which is why basically all the non-faith-based economists say his plan is awful and will destroy everything.
It is the same thing that keep the GOP's attacks bouncing off of Obama. We've been conditioned that Europe is bad and America is good regardless of the truth. So it comes down to this: who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?
metalslimer
Member
Neither of the two candidates represent true austerity. Ironically, we'll will get a taste of it if they can't reach a budget agreement.
Obama needs to bring some of this stuff up on Monday...
Edit: How in the hell is this guy still in the running????
- Status