2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Leon-IH]

Well, apparently Romney is set to be campaigning in PA, MN and WI in the last few days.


As far as I can tell that has 3 possible meanings

1. Romney thinks Ohio or Virginia is a lost cause.

2. Romney thinks Ohio and Virginia are in the bag and wants to get a bigger majority.

3. Romney isn't certain either way on Ohio and Virginia but feels more campaigning there won't achieve anything.


Personally I think it's a bit sad that Romney (a man too weak to stand up to the looneys who think Obama is a Muslim) has a better shot of winning than McCain (who wasn't).

[shazza]

Well, apparently Romney is set to be campaigning in PA, MN and WI in the last few days.


As far as I can tell that has 3 possible meanings

1. Romney thinks Ohio or Virginia is a lost cause.

2. Romney thinks Ohio and Virginia are in the bag and wants to get a bigger majority.

3. Romney isn't certain either way on Ohio and Virginia but feels more campaigning there won't achieve anything.

How pervasive!

[Roy Karrde]

Well, apparently Romney is set to be campaigning in PA, MN and WI in the last few days.


As far as I can tell that has 3 possible meanings

1. Romney thinks Ohio or Virginia is a lost cause.

2. Romney thinks Ohio and Virginia are in the bag and wants to get a bigger majority.

3. Romney isn't certain either way on Ohio and Virginia but feels more campaigning there won't achieve anything.

Right now it is a mixture of 2 and 3 from what I am hearing. PA, MN, and especially WI are moving Romney's way, and forcing Obama to spend his last weekend defending reliably blue states.

Personally I think it's a bit sad that Romney (a man too weak to stand up to the looneys who think Obama is a Muslim) has a better shot of winning than McCain (who wasn't).

So Romney needs to rebut everything that a looney says? By that logic why hasn't Obama gone after all those magic underwear jokes and everything else his looneys have said about Romney and Mormonism? Or is the President just too weak to stand up to that?

[shazza]

So Romney needs to rebut everything that a looney says? By that logic why hasn't Obama gone after all those magic underwear jokes and everything else his looneys have said about Romney and Mormonism? Or is the President just too weak to stand up to that?

The key divergence between these two situations, and regardless how reasonable the claims are, is that Romney has been consistently characterised as a “looney” – by liberals, by the media, and regularly by his own doing. Surely it would be advantageous for Romney to overtly distance himself from these repeated accusations and potentially attenuate the mounting perception that he is a “looney”.

So, rather it being an indication of strength or weakness from either candidate (and such accusations by Democrats or Republicans alike are nonsensical party politics), it’s otherwise a case of prudence: for Romney, his character is undeniably intertwined with these claims - he is a "looney" - and thus to announce otherwise would be prudent; for Obama, however, his character is not associated with these claims, and for him to announce his distance would be merely announcing the obvious which would bring about bewildered reactions and ensuing skepticism.

[Leon-IH]

Right now it is a mixture of 2 and 3 from what I am hearing. PA, MN, and especially WI are moving Romney's way, and forcing Obama to spend his last weekend defending reliably blue states.

Given Ohio polling isn't exactly favourable for Romney it could be a mix of all 3.

PA has to be a worry for Obama given the voter id confusion there but campaigning or advertising there isn't necessarily going to help him (beyond some defensive ads which are apparently already running); it's going to come down to the ground operations of both parties there.

He has an 8pt lead in MN which is fairly tough to see Romney overtaking, WI could get close but even if Romney takes it he'd need to reverse his fortunes in IA or NH while taking the other close swing states (CO, FL, VA) -- assuming PA and OH don't move, which is unlikely but in the realms of possibility.

I'm amazed Romney hasn't spent some time in FL lately, the hurricane has helped Obama there and Clinton campaigning there can't have hurt him either.

So Romney needs to rebut everything that a looney says? By that logic why hasn't Obama gone after all those magic underwear jokes and everything else his looneys have said about Romney and Mormonism? Or is the President just too weak to stand up to that?

It's not so much rebut everything (though I'd note he won't even do it when it's right in front of him like McCain did somewhat famously), but he would be somewhat more respectable if he didn't shift positions based on the crowd he's standing in front of.

[Dark Sage]

I truly doubt that Romney is so naive to believe that Ohio and Virginia are in the bag.

The latest Rasmussen Reports (which historically favor the GOP) now say that both states, and the national polls, are even, which is a loss for Romney in those polls.

The Romney camp keeps saying that it is going to do better than McCain, and they may be right. However, in order to win this election, they have to do better than Obama.

[Roy Karrde]

I'm amazed Romney hasn't spent some time in FL lately, the hurricane has helped Obama there and Clinton campaigning there can't have hurt him either.

Romney is up 6 in Florida

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/0...-6-in-florida/

It's not so much rebut everything (though I'd note he won't even do it when it's right in front of him like McCain did somewhat famously), but he would be somewhat more respectable if he didn't shift positions based on the crowd he's standing in front of.

And in which crowd has Romney said Obama is a Muslim?

The key divergence between these two situations, and regardless how reasonable the claims are, is that Romney has been consistently characterised as a “looney” – by liberals, by the media, and regularly by his own doing. Surely it would be advantageous for Romney to overtly distance himself from these repeated accusations and potentially attenuate the mounting perception that he is a “looney”.

So, rather it being an indication of strength or weakness from either candidate (and such accusations by Democrats or Republicans alike are nonsensical party politics), it’s otherwise a case of prudence: for Romney, his character is undeniably intertwined with these claims - he is a "looney" - and thus to announce otherwise would be prudent; for Obama, however, his character is not associated with these claims, and for him to announce his distance would be merely announcing the obvious which would bring about bewildered reactions and ensuing skepticism.

You know what, Romney could go out and say Obama is the most Christian American to ever walk this Earth. And the left and the media would willingly go along with Romney being looney and out of touch. That was Obama's whole strategy for the summer. Meanwhile Biden goes around acting like a mouth breathing retard, and Obama runs a campaign in which Big Bird is the big October theme and the media doesn't touch it.

Just like I doubt they will touch the next big gaffe from Obama.



Saying "Voting is the best revenge" is going to kill him even further with independents, but it will be up to Romney to push the story. Much as he did at the rally last night in Ohio in which tens of thousands showed up.

[Telume]

Romney is up 6 in Florida

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/0...-6-in-florida/



And in which crowd has Romney said Obama is a Muslim?



You know what, Romney could go out and say Obama is the most Christian American to ever walk this Earth. And the left and the media would willingly go along with Romney being looney and out of touch. That was Obama's whole strategy for the summer. Meanwhile Biden goes around acting like a mouth breathing retard, and Obama runs a campaign in which Big Bird is the big October theme and the media doesn't touch it.

Just like I doubt they will touch the next big gaffe from Obama.



Saying "Voting is the best revenge" is going to kill him even further with independents, but it will be up to Romney to push the story. Much as he did at the rally last night in Ohio in which tens of thousands showed up.

You call that a gaffe? THIS is a gaffe:

[Dark Sage]

Baron Munchhausen, Pinnochio, and The Boy Who Cried Wolf...

Once this election is over, Mitt Romney can join them in the Liar's Hall of Fame.

[Roy Karrde]

Baron Munchhausen, Pinnochio, and The Boy Who Cried Wolf...

Once this election is over, Mitt Romney can join them in the Liar's Hall of Fame.

You call that a gaffe? THIS is a gaffe:

So let me get this straight, Obama out and out lies repeatedly about Romney's position on the GM bailouts, and when the topic turns on them, Obama and his team in the media start whining about it?

[Leon-IH]

Romney is up 6 in Florida

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/0...-6-in-florida/

The averaging of polls has a slight lead to either candidate in Florida or even, I think we all know at this point that single polls don't mean much. Most recent polling shows a close race, and with Clinton campaigning there for Obama it is certainly getting closer than it was a few weeks ago.

And in which crowd has Romney said Obama is a Muslim?

I can't be bothered tracking down the videos (because listening to stupid rednecks talk makes me want to put my fist through a wall), but on several occasions Romney has been at events where Obama has been declared to be a 'Muslim' or an 'Arab' and made no effort to refute the inaccurate characterisations.

As for McCain http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRq6Y4NmB6U

Say what you like about his campaign strategy, his choice of running mate, at least he campaigned with integrity and class on an actual solid set of plans, unlike Romney who seems to chameleon to be whatever he thinks the crowd in front of him will support.

You know what, Romney could go out and say Obama is the most Christian American to ever walk this Earth. And the left and the media would willingly go along with Romney being looney and out of touch.

Oh geez, the 'liberal media' argument?

I thought you were smarter than that.

[Roy Karrde]

The averaging of polls has a slight lead to either candidate in Florida or even, I think we all know at this point that single polls don't mean much. Most recent polling shows a close race, and with Clinton campaigning there for Obama it is certainly getting closer than it was a few weeks ago.

The "Average" of polls, includes polls that are days if not weeks old, nor does it get rid of polls that have massive over sampling ( One in Ohio today for example had a D +9 sample ). As such using it, especially this late in the race is wrong.

I can't be bothered tracking down the videos (because listening to stupid rednecks talk makes me want to put my fist through a wall), but on several occasions Romney has been at events where Obama has been declared to be a 'Muslim' or an 'Arab' and made no effort to refute the inaccurate characterisations.

As for McCain http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRq6Y4NmB6U

Say what you like about his campaign strategy, his choice of running mate, at least he campaigned with integrity and class on an actual solid set of plans, unlike Romney who seems to chameleon to be whatever he thinks the crowd in front of him will support.

No, no, no. I said when has Romney said it, you say he has "Shifted positions" or "Chameleon" himself infront of a crowd, that insinuates that he supports those positions. I want proof, saying he does not refute what a idiot says in a crowd does not mean he supports that position. Idiots in crowds say things at both events, both for Romney and Obama, neither has gotten up to shout down the crowd. But to say he has shifted positions, suggests that he actually supports what the crowd is saying.

So either provide proof, or retract the statement.

Oh geez, the 'liberal media' argument?

I thought you were smarter than that.

So you suggest that the media does not carry water for Obama?

As say lets look at the study that came out on Benghazi which shows the media largely went along with what Obama said happened.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/...nghazi-attack/

Forbes may be technically right, but either way, the report is disingenuous. Romney wanted the bailout to be provided for by minimal government assistance (the definition of which is never actually explained, anywhere) and private funds, which weren't reasonably available during a meltdown. The likely result of this would have been greater liquidation and disarray. Without the government bailout, the managed bankruptcy that Romney did indeed suggest was not really possible. Actually, it's quite possible that without the bailout, the auto industry would have gone belly up.

What the creditors would do, how GM would react, how the Government would step in if things did not go to plan is all speculation. The fact is that Obama's claim that Romney would let GM go under based on what he wrote however is a bald face lie, period.

Also, on Jeeps in China: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ans-china-ame/

You know what is sad about Politifact is that they have stopped dealing with facts the only thing they can come up that they believe is non factual about the ad, is "what impression it leaves". Maybe Politifact should stick to the facts and stop psychoanalyzing ads.

On Obama's "voting is the best revenge" comment.
1. Should there really be such a thing as an "average voter," I doubt they saw this clip. That, and they're probably not interested in watching any attack ads Mitt Romney might use to spin it into something painting Obama as unpatriotic. Which just isn't true in this instance.

Hmm taking a cherished American freedom, one that people have fought and died for, and resorting to use it in a petty attempt for "revenge" and you say that is unpatriotic?

3. There is nothing truly heinous about the "voting is the best revenge" comment. The suggestion seems to be that it is the reasonable, even civic, way to disagree with the other side. What exactly is wrong with this idea?

Disagree? Yes. Seeking Revenge? That puts a significant negative connotation to it, it suggests that you have been personally wronged, to again phrase a political disagreement as revenge is petty and childish.

4. The only people who will be scared by this tactic are white, working class Republicans who think Obama's "revenge" means "racial comeuppance."

Yeah I wonder where they get THAT idea

Maybe with the death threats, and the threats of rioting, and the other racial scare tactics getting thrown around if Obama loses, maybe Obama should choose better words?

[mr_pikachu]

I'll say one thing. This country seems as divided as it's ever been -- or at least as divided as it's been during our lifetimes. (The Civil War was probably worse, but that's not saying much.) I don't think I've ever seen such a deep division between Americans.

Even when W. was in office, things weren't this volatile -- you had snide jokes all over the place, and even shows like "Lil' Dubya" or whatever openly mocking the president, but it never went beyond snarkiness. Open threats of violence are... different. And so is the sense from both sides that the country will be decimated if the other party holds the presidency through 2016.

It's kind of scary, honestly, to see the deep chasms between Americans, and to see people treat others as though they're sub-human if they don't share the same political affiliations.

This is why, when I'm on campus, I make a rule not to disclose my political beliefs. There are only a couple of people whom I know largely agree with me, and we only talk politics a) off campus or b) in hushed voices behind locked doors. It may sound a little paranoid, but it's honestly not: the last guy in our department who openly said he leaned right was treated as a pariah. Granted, he was okay with being treated that way, as he deemed the open hostility a worthwhile in order to have a free voice. But still, the point stands. That really doesn't seem like it should be an exchange anyone has to consider in the first place.

[Leon-IH]

The "Average" of polls, includes polls that are days if not weeks old, nor does it get rid of polls that have massive over sampling ( One in Ohio today for example had a D +9 sample ). As such using it, especially this late in the race is wrong.

Perhaps an average of relevant polls is what I'm suggesting -- throw out the obviously wrong ones and take an average. Last election PPP fell a few points too far democrat, Rasmussen fell a few points too far republican, Quinnipac was the most accurate but still had errors both ways enough to be the difference between some close races. Single polls don't really mean much.

Obama has been gaining lately -- he's even nationally in a recent Rassmussen poll for the first time since early October.

No, no, no. I said when has Romney said it, you say he has "Shifted positions" or "Chameleon" himself infront of a crowd, that insinuates that he supports those positions. I want proof, saying he does not refute what a idiot says in a crowd does not mean he supports that position. Idiots in crowds say things at both events, both for Romney and Obama, neither has gotten up to shout down the crowd. But to say he has shifted positions, suggests that he actually supports what the crowd is saying.

So either provide proof, or retract the statement.

Romney shifting positions..

Various ones in the Debates: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZfXvFAeHVo
Gun Laws: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj8Nk3p1wyY
Abortion, Global Warming and Healthcare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyp2QIGejq4

By failing to speak out against lies that are right in front of you, you're offering a tacit approval; Romney is working with people like Donald Trump and making birth certificate jokes -- he's far from doing what McCain did and telling the inaccurate loony bin part of his party to stop spreading falsehoods.

I've never said Romney has offered an explicit approval, but he's certainly got no interest in quelling the bullshit either.

So you suggest that the media does not carry water for Obama?

As say lets look at the study that came out on Benghazi which shows the media largely went along with what Obama said happened.

The media will follow the white house line on *most* events of this nature, at least at first, many newspapers had Hussein having WMD pre-Iraq invasion -- which had zero credibility as we all found out later.

I'll say one thing. This country seems as divided as it's ever been -- or at least as divided as it's been during our lifetimes. (The Civil War was probably worse, but that's not saying much.) I don't think I've ever seen such a deep division between Americans.

Funny you mention the civil war, I was reading the other day that this election has a good chance of ending up with all the former confederate states being in the same block -- a near literal return to the civil war albeit in cold war form.