2012 Presidential Campaign

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

Seriously? As opposed the Wacko Roman Catholic, Jewish, Protestant justices that are already there?

Well, you do have to admit, if it was a mormon justice, he'd feel right at home being on a council of 12.

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Well, you do have to admit, if it was a mormon justice, he'd feel right at home being on a council of 12.

Ba-dum dum dum!

[JediKooter]

I'm here all week! Try the veal.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

Seriously? As opposed the Wacko Roman Catholic, Jewish, Protestant justices that are already there?

Oh, and I don't know why they are discounting it in one of the wiki sites but George Sutherland was Mormon, but had deemed to have left the church at some point in time and are counting him as Presbyterian.

Edit: Found out more...Sutherland left the Mormon Church and became a Presbyterian, an apostasy that contributed to his being defeated in the 1916 Senate election. He was president of the American Bar Association from 1916 through 1917. He became active in national Republican circles and was an advisor to President Warren Harding, who nominated him to the Supreme Court in 1922.

Actually what I meant to say was an actual wacko LDS guy. Like George W. Bush might nominate a wacko Methodist guy. Not implying all LDS guys are wacko just that Romney would choose one of the wacko ones. (Though I can see how I may have not been clear)

I am probably not the one that you want to ask the Jewish/Catholic/Protestant thing though since I am a strong believer that the current court does not respesent this country at all. But presenting simple numbers must mean I am crazy...

Religion Supreme Court % Actual US %

Jewish 33% 2%
Catholic 67% 24%
Protestant 0% 51%
Mormon 0% 2%
Atheist/Agnostic 0% 16%
Hindu 0% 1%
Islam 0% 1%
Buddhist 0% 1%

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Heavy swing puts Romney up by 4 points in the Pew poll in their first post-debate numbers. Really surprised that it would swing this heavily. Got to be something we're not seeing here.

Pew: Romney Leads By 4 In Post-Debate Survey - Yahoo! News

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Heavy swing puts Romney up by 4 points in the Pew poll in their first post-debate numbers. Really surprised that it would swing this heavily. Got to be something we're not seeing here.

Pew: Romney Leads By 4 In Post-Debate Survey - Yahoo! News

There's a massive shift mentioned in the writethrough, so big that it makes me wonder if there's actually a tabulation error here.

Obama's 18-point lead with women shown in Pew's previous poll is also gone, with the two candidates now tied among female voters.

That sort of swing in a large group would be remarkable, heck it might also be enough to account for most (all?) of the swing in the overall result.

Aside from that, the other thing that comes to mind is a shift in the number (and composition) of "likely voters". Maybe there were a significant amount of Romney voters previously leaning toward not-likely-to-vote and they were motivated by the debate, shoving an entire block into his latest overall results.

[JPhillips]

Pew is very good, but I'd bet this is an outlier. The daily trackers aren't showing this much movement and the state polls aren't either. PPP is going to show a slight lead for Romney tomorrow, but not this big.

The race is definitely tighter, but until some more polls show this spread I wouldn't take it as gospel.

[Buccaneer]

I still don't see it. Romney has to win MO, OH, VA, NC and FL just to have a chance.

[larrymcg421]

Interesting results from Gallup today, which contains good and bad news for both candidates.

Good for Romney: He trails by 3 points in the Registered Voter model, but is ahead by 2 points on the Likely Voter model, meaning Obama has a ton of work to do in GOTV efforts. The GOP always has an advantage in this area, but Obama had a phenomenal GOTV operation last time and the different between LV and RV was miniscule. The debate performance may have made supporters less enthusiastic more than switch anyone to Romney.

Good for Obama: Gallup released a breakdown of their daily polling.

Three days before debate: Obama 50, Romney 45
Three days after debate: Obama 47, Romney 47
Last 2 days: Obama 50, Romney 45

This suggests that Romney's debate bounce has receded, perhaps (as Gallup notes) due in part to the favorable jobs report.

[molson]

It certainly would be interesting if Romney won the popular vote but lost the election. Then everybody can switch sides in that whole debate about the electoral college.

[albionmoonlight]

The electoral college debate has been had over and over again. But, really, look at this list: List of United States cities by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Only 2 of the top ten largest cities in the country have any arguable relevance to who will win the election (and I'm being generous in including Phoenix as one of the two considering that Arizona isn't really a swing state).

That just seems . . . outdated.

[albionmoonlight]

So if a Romney Win/Loss is what it would take to get an EC-abolishing amendment through, I'm for that.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

It certainly would be interesting if Romney won the popular vote but lost the election. Then everybody can switch sides in that whole debate about the electoral college.

I was against the electoral college before 2000 and will be against it no matter what happens in 2012. I'll be happy that Obama wins if your scenario comes to pass, but I will still think the EC needs to be repealed.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

The electoral college debate has been had over and over again. But, really, look at this list: List of United States cities by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Only 2 of the top ten largest cities in the country have any arguable relevance to who will win the election (and I'm being generous in including Phoenix as one of the two considering that Arizona isn't really a swing state).

That just seems . . . outdated.

Yeah but people will just point to that stupid map that shows all that territory covered by Bush in 2000. Because 100,000 people spread over a small area are apparently less worthy citizens than 100,000 people spread over a larger area.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

The electoral college debate has been had over and over again. But, really, look at this list: List of United States cities by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Only 2 of the top ten largest cities in the country have any arguable relevance to who will win the election (and I'm being generous in including Phoenix as one of the two considering that Arizona isn't really a swing state).

That just seems . . . outdated.

Just to play devil's advocate, isn't there some value to having candidates pander to other parts of the United States, tho. They have to get to know something about the problems of people in Wisconsin and Colorado and Florida and Ohio rather than just addressing the problems of those who live in NYC and LA. Look at the swing states- they're scattered throughout the US on the boundaries of different regions of the country.

I'm not saying that I'm ironclad one way or another but are you telling me candidates would even think about what someone in Iowa or Michigan might want out of government if it were a popular vote contest? But the automotive manufacturing and farming industries are two of our most important and we hear rhetoric about these things during the campaign.

SI

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Just to play devil's advocate, isn't there some value to having candidates pander to other parts of the United States, tho. They have to get to know something about the problems of people in Wisconsin and Colorado and Florida and Ohio rather than just addressing the problems of those who live in NYC and LA. Look at the swing states- they're scattered throughout the US on the boundaries of different regions of the country.

I'm not saying that I'm ironclad one way or another but are you telling me candidates would even think about what someone in Iowa or Michigan might want out of government if it were a popular vote contest? But the automotive manufacturing and farming industries are two of our most important and we hear rhetoric about these things during the campaign.

SI

I don't agree with this, because under a popular vote model, those areas would still matter. The metro areas of NY and LA still account for less than 10% of the national population. If you only catered to their interests, you would lose.

Under a direct vote system, you'd have more national campaigns with probably more national ad buys as opposed to local ones. And even the local buys, cost effectiveness still makes it as worthwhile to run ads in small markets as it does in large markets.

[sterlingice]

Doesn't that make money just that much more valuable to a campaign if you have to carpet bomb the entire US rather than a few key states?

SI

[molson]

I could maybe see angry Republicans making this their "thing" to save face, and angry Republicans maybe can be effective at getting stuff done. If they did lose their minds over it, maybe the Dems would be smart to get some concessions to support it as well, as ridiculous as that would make everyone look.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Doesn't that make money just that much more valuable to a campaign if you have to carpet bomb the entire US rather than a few key states?

SI

The two campaigns will spend over 2 billion this year. Short of a Constitutional amendment there isn't anything to be done about the money in politics.

[bronconick]

Ideally, since we're discussing things likely never to happen, I'd like an impartial 3rd party to create the house districts nationwide, and then have all states split their electoral votes like Nebraska and Maine do.

[Grover]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The two campaigns will spend over 2 billion this year. Short of a Constitutional amendment there isn't anything to be done about the money in politics.

I find it ridiculous for any of these politicians to be able to decide how to spend our money in their budgets when they're willing to spend this much money to get into an elected office.

It's ridiculous.

EDIT: and I am redundant.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by molson

It certainly would be interesting if Romney won the popular vote but lost the election. Then everybody can switch sides in that whole debate about the electoral college.

The interesting thing is that the Republicans were more worried about this before the 2000 election, and the opposite happened. Now it's more a Democrat issue.

Unless you simply count the total votes, there are vast numbers of people who don't count. The electoral college is just one compromise of many possible, each with its own pros and cons.

My early analysis tells me this election is all about Ohio and Virginia. Pretty much nothing else matters. If Obama wins Florida, it won't be close. If Romney wins Pennsylvania or Michigan, it won't be close the other way.

So we have a disproportionate number of people in a few mid-sized cities pretty much deciding our presidency. I would imagine if you're living in Cleveland or Cincinnati, you've probably disconnected your phone in frustration by now.

The electoral college paradigm is more fun from a national perspective. Would we accept a scenario where the Democrat always has an early lead, then the Republican storms back to take a significant lead, only to lose it at 2 in the morning, if at all? On the other hand, has Romney even been to the West Coast since the primary season?

[albionmoonlight]

Nate Silver tweeted that he expects the 538 model to "show its largest one day swing of the year." Not so encouraging if you are a President Obama supporter, I'd expect.

[stevew]

I think Obama dropped from about 75% to win to around 71% to win.

[sterlingice]

Intrade has Obama down to 60%. I think that'd be some good action to get in on if I were a gambler

SI

[Passacaglia]

That's interesting, since the Pew poll was already included this morning when I checked, which had him at 75%. What's changed since then?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by bronconick

Ideally, since we're discussing things likely never to happen, I'd like an impartial 3rd party to create the house districts nationwide, and then have all states split their electoral votes like Nebraska and Maine do.

Agreed 100% on house district creation

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by bronconick

I'd like an impartial 3rd party

No such thing.

[Big Fo]

I've always hated the Electoral College, ever since I first learned about it when I was a kid. It's just a giant "fuck you" to everyone but the people of around a dozen states in any given presidential election.

I think it also discourages voter turnout. In addition to most states not really affecting who wins the presidential election, in many states people know that there's very little chance their vote will matter due to how the US House districts and state house/senate districts have been drawn up. But with a national popular vote deciding the presidency, at least that'd give people in those kinds of states more of a reason to bother going out to vote.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Short of a Constitutional amendment there isn't anything to be done about the money in politics.

Nor should there be.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

No such thing.

agreed. And on top of that, none of the Representatives are even bound to live in the district they represent anyways.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

And even the local buys, cost effectiveness still makes it as worthwhile to run ads in small markets as it does in large markets.

Nope. The general tipping point is usually somewhere around 12-15 markets (assuming a decent mixture of mkt 1-10, 11-25, 26-50, 51-100, etc). Once you get past that, the national buy is always more cost efficient if your target audience is truly national. It's not all that uncommon to see situations where buying full national is actually more cost effective than buying by market even if you have a completely regional product. Other factors (such as mass consumer confusion & the headaches it can cause) that prevent more advertisers from actually going that route.

That's a minor matter in the grand scheme of the discussion however.

edit to add: I think I should clarify that I'm talking about cost efficiency, i.e. CPM/Cost Per Thousand (persons) basis. The hang up for many advertisers is gross cost. There's a significant real cash cost to reaching the masses at maximum efficiency, so in the absence of unlimited funds, many advertisers stick to the local route (i.e. I'd rather reach 50k people in Greensboro, NC for $5,000 than 500k people nationally for $25,000)

[stevew]

Living in the Youngstown TV market is the worst. We get all the BS Ohio senate and house garbage(Wilson vs Johnson is fucking insane). Plus a shit ton of Obama vs. Romney shit. And the greatest thing is that I don't even live in ohio. The local house race(PA3) is not competitive and Casey Jr. will win 55-45, so at least I'm not getting a shit ton of PA ads as well.

[DaddyTorgo]

I'm going to be supervising Election Day polling for my brother's HS political science class this year. Should be fun.

Plus, when his 25 year-old teacher emailed me back to confirm where I'd be doing it she signed her email "Em" instead of her full name, or "Miss _____" (as I addressed my initial email to her).

Maybe it's nothing, or maybe she wants a piece of this.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I'm going to be supervising Election Day polling for my brother's HS political science class this year. Should be fun.

Plus, when his 25 year-old teacher emailed me back to confirm where I'd be doing it she signed her email "Em" instead of her full name, or "Miss _____" (as I addressed my initial email to her).

Maybe it's nothing, or maybe she wants a piece of this.

She could be looking for a private pole.

[RainMaker]

Yeah, that's pretty much a guarantee she wants to ride the DT train.

Seems like the race is really tightening up. Will be interesting to see how things play out. Sort of surprised a debate could have such an impact. I can't remember one changing the race that dramatically before.

[bulletsponge]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I'm going to be supervising Election Day polling for my brother's HS political science class this year. Should be fun.

Plus, when his 25 year-old teacher emailed me back to confirm where I'd be doing it she signed her email "Em" instead of her full name, or "Miss _____" (as I addressed my initial email to her).

Maybe it's nothing, or maybe she wants a piece of this.

time to "poll her electorate"

crap this is what i get for coming into this god forsaken thread

[stevew]

She wants to pull your lever.
Her curtains are ready to open up.
She needs to examine your hanging chad.
If she's Asian, it could get dicey when she asks about the "election returns"
I'm going to hell.

[Solecismic]

It's definitely tight, but the question is whether the Romney bounce recedes a bit as the debates proceed. Either way, I don't think the line stays here.

This is how I view the election today:



The solid vertical lines are "fire" lines. If anything falls outside of those lines, the candidate cannot win. Romney cannot win without Florida; Obama cannot win without Pennsylvania.

A is where we were at the start of October. Outside Romney's fire line. He was in a losing situation. Not any question about how an election would have gone last week.

B is where we are today. I believe Obama would win today, but we'd be up late looking at results from Ohio, Virginia and Nevada. Romney would squeak by with a win by taking all three.

The positive signs for Obama?

- He just took quite a hit. These things always bounce back a little.
- He's still playing defense. It's harder to move forward than to keep your turf.
- The center of the line is Ohio. It's quite likely the winner of Ohio wins the election. However, Obama can take Virginia and Nevada and still win without it, while Romney would need Virginia, Nevada and Wisconsin (or Virginia, Nevada and Iowa forces a tie). Romney has to break into states definitely leaning blue if he's to win without Ohio. Obama doesn't need red.

The positive sign for Romney?

- The scale of this line favors him if he gains momentum. The difference between the fire lines is only 3 points. Another two points and he's over Obama's fire line. He doesn't have to sweep Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Iowa to get to security at Pennsylvania Avenue (sorry, couldn't resist). He just has to put Pennsylvania in serious play.

Obama seems rather solid right now at 201 and Romney at 206. But it was just a week ago when you would have said Obama was solid at 257 and Romney at only 170.

[molson]

Originally Posted by stevew

She wants to pull your lever.
Her curtains are ready to open up.
She needs to examine your hanging chad.
If she's Asian, it could get dicey when she asks about the "election returns"
I'm going to hell.

I heard she's not full-time into caucus but is actually bipartisan.

I got nothing.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by stevew

She wants to pull your lever.
Her curtains are ready to open up.
She needs to examine your hanging chad.
If she's Asian, it could get dicey when she asks about the "election returns"
I'm going to hell.

All that and no mention of how her ticket is split?

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

So if a Romney Win/Loss is what it would take to get an EC-abolishing amendment through, I'm for that.

While a constitutional amendment might not really have enough juice... it could technically be effected with a multi-state compact simply agreed upon by states representing a majority of electoral votes. Too esoteric to happen, sure, but it's passed in nine states.

[JPhillips]

So now Romney says he isn't going to do anything to restrict abortion.

Is there any position he won't change?

I don't know what's more amazing, his willingness to say anything or Obama's inability to call him on it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So now Romney says he isn't going to do anything to restrict abortion.

LOL, the one issue that I had previously said I actually believed him on (funnier still since it's probably the single most obvious opposite position we have)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Dola

Just read the currently short AP blurb on the Romney/abortion comment.

President Barack Obama's campaign says the Republican challenger is not telling the truth about his position. Obama campaign officials cite a remark from a 2007 GOP debate that he would "be delighted" to sign a bill banning all abortions.

This seems like a case where Romney could be telling the truth (in so many words) but where Obama might actually be doing him a favor by pointing out past remarks.

Not much mental gymnastics needed to see how "There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda." is considerably different from how happy/willing Romney would be to sign such legislation if it suddenly appeared.

He (Romney) doesn't really have to pursue legislation in order for it to exist, all he has to do is wait for it and sign it if it hits his desk.

The angle of attack by the Obama campaign seems (IMO anyway) to suggest that Romney's recent gains may have come from the middle & they feel a need to scare people off him. I'm not sure that's the right play, I have to think letting his statement stand on its own would cost Romney support from single-issue voters Romney would have had in the bag if he just keeps his mouth shut.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Dola

Just read the currently short AP blurb on the Romney/abortion comment.



This seems like a case where Romney could be telling the truth (in so many words) but where Obama might actually be doing him a favor by pointing out past remarks.

Not much mental gymnastics needed to see how "There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda." is considerably different from how happy/willing Romney would be to sign such legislation if it suddenly appeared.

He (Romney) doesn't really have to pursue legislation in order for it to exist, all he has to do is wait for it and sign it if it hits his desk.

The angle of attack by the Obama campaign seems (IMO anyway) to suggest that Romney's recent gains may have come from the middle & they feel a need to scare people off him. I'm not sure that's the right play, I have to think letting his statement stand on its own would cost Romney support from single-issue voters Romney would have had in the bag if he just keeps his mouth shut.

27 second mark. "I will preserve and defend a woman's right to choose."

Followed by "We gotta overturn Roe to preserve the sanctity of life."

I'm paraphrasing, but the actual words he used don't leave any room for doubt.

This guy is a professional weasel. You may think Obama's evil and bad for the country etc but I don't know how you, or anybody who votes for Romney next month, can trust a single word that comes out of his mouth.

What Romney voters will be doing is essentially one of two things:

1) RAH TEAM OBAMA BAD
2) Flip the coin and hope like hell that the Romney who shows up in the White House is the Romney who's said all the red-meat-for-conservatives thing, not the Romney who's said the exact opposite on multiple occasions. They'll be hoping like hell Romney is the conservative he's totally pinky-swearing he's going to be, and not the guy who ran for Massachusetts governor as a "progressive moderate."

They'll hope he really has changed, if you'll pardon the lame joke. Because there's nothing in his political history to suggest that you can trust anything that comes out of his mouth at this point.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

This guy is a professional weasel. You may think Obama's evil and bad for the country etc but I don't know how you, or anybody who votes for Romney next month, can trust a single word that comes out of his mouth.

You may have missed it but ... I've said repeatedly that I have no intention of voting for Romney (or Obama) next month. And the fact that I'd look outside if he told me it was raining has been a big part of that.

Hell, from the blog post that I'm literally just finishing up "For as little as I trust anything that comes out of Romney's mouth about virtually anything ..."

But there's certainly a lot of "hope like hell he's just posturing" voters out there, and no shortage of people simply unwilling to bother to read/listen to his own words either. I believe both groups are going to be gravely disappointed with what they get if he somehow finds a way to win.

[RainMaker]

Mitt is an odd guy and I'm surprised he is doing so well in this era where everything is on video. I feel like he would have been a perfect candidate 50+ years ago.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Screw modesty, I'll throw in a link to the blog post this little sub-topic inspired. After all, this thread is pretty much to blame for me writing it.

I even tried to be fairly non-partisan about the whole thing, mostly cynical if anything I guess, more concerned with the various twists & turns this (non?) story presents than with the issue itself.
Guard, turn, parry … | Jon's Three Cents

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You may have missed it but ... I've said repeatedly that I have no intention of voting for Romney (or Obama) next month.

No, I didn't miss it. That's why I was specific in my phrasing - you or anybody who votes, not anybody 'else.' Specific reasoning for my omission there. :-)

My point was simply that, if we're agreed that he can't be trusted, taking the effort to try and defend him (when, even if the specific statement can be parsed, he's actually got a history of taking both sides of that topic) seems futile.

But there's certainly a lot of "hope like hell he's just posturing" voters out there, and no shortage of people simply unwilling to bother to read/listen to his own words either. I believe both groups are going to be gravely disappointed with what they get if he somehow finds a way to win.

I don't think Romney's a two-term candidate unless he finds a way to pull Clinton-era unemployment levels out of his ass. Not because he'd be an incompetent president, but because no matter how he governs, half of his own base is going to hate him in four years.