A month ago, there was a fair amount of bravado in Republican circles, with many in the GOP cautiously optimistic the presidential race. The swagger is now gone -- Politico quoted "top advisers to Mitt Romney" who conceded that President Obama is the favorite. The same piece said internal Republican polls show Ohio "clearly" leaning in the president's favor.
Now that the dust has settled on both major-party conventions, we can also take a look at two full weeks' worth of Gallup tracking data.
That straight, boring line on the left half of the chart? That's the period around the Republican convention -- which showed no bounce for Romney at all. As things currently stand, Gallup shows Obama up by five, which is hardly an insurmountable lead, but is the larger advantage either candidate has enjoyed in the last 11 weeks. Other polls are pointing in a similar direction.
With a growing sense of dread in Republican circles, the Romney campaign's pollster published a memo this morning, urging everyone to just calm down. Neil Newhouse -- yes, that Neil Newhouse -- acknowledged Obama's lead, but dismissed the president's advantage as "a sugar high" that won't last.
He may well be right. We don't yet know whether Obama's current lead is the result of a post-convention bounce that will soon fade, or whether it's a new normal that will last until the debates in a few weeks. Time will tell.
That said, it's worth noting that the Team Romney memo was extremely thin -- it wasn't based on data or any kind of evidence; it was instead based on hopes of what Republicans think could happen in the near future. For GOP voters worried about Romney's chances, the polling memo effectively boiled down to, "This'll work out; trust us."
For Republicans inching closer to panic, this may fall short of reassuring. Romney was supposed to get a bump when Paul Ryan was introduced, but that didn't amount to much. He was supposed to get a bump from his convention, but that proved underwhelming, too.
Mark Halperin, who's generally a fairly reliable barometer of what the inside-the-beltway establishment is thinking, said this morning that Romney "faces the immediate threat of both quiet and loud we-told-you-so's from Republicans who last year had the very worries they fear are being manifested now. Romney is an awkward, unlikable candidate.... Until Romney breaks this cycle, he is in danger of living out the Haley Barbour dictum: in politics, bad gets worse."
Halperin added that GOP donors may even start investing less in the presidential race and more in congressional contests if they perceive Romney as a likely loser.
For what it's worth, I tend to think all this handwringing in Republican circles is premature. But eight weeks out, it's also fair to say Obama, not his challenger, is exactly where he wants to be.
Leave a Comment:
Romney's honeymoon is over already, and it's not even the election yet.
Hope you are right, Grumpy, but I'm still worried about all the GOP money and voter suppression.
Wait till the $hitstorm starts.
They are running them back to back in Florida.
Especially aggravating is that Canadian complaining about the Canadian health care system. Lies and lots of them.
I lived there and its not like that
She didn't have a terminal illness
and explain to me again how a private insurance with a mandate becomes single payer
Sick n effin tired is correct as regards the "Florida Horseshoe" (That is Naples to Orlando to Miami).
Sick n effin tired is also correct as regards the Canadian health system. I spend half the year in Canada and have found few who want any part of the U.S. model -- and most who do have had a bad experience. "Bad Experiences" should not happen, but they do and I'd be pissed if I had one too. Its like, with me, I shall never even consider buying anything labelled "Magnavox".
But I am an optimist even though I know in FL, Ohio, and the other "decider" states the TV and the Radio and the Mailman for goddess's sake will be all up in your bed with you for the next several weeks.
Why am I optimistic?
Easy: Obama has lower negatives and has successfully stated the pertinent proposition: "Hey! You know who I am, but who the hell is this other guy?"
...and the other guy will not answer
Yes, STAR, but there's a sizable part of the electorate who knows that Mitt isn't Obama (MItt's white, a foreign policy hawk[or so he says], pro gun[oshs], anti choice [oshs!] and talks like he's angry at/about President Obama). I'm not as confident as you are.
I believe they have pulled their ads in Penn and Michigan.
I also worry about the voter supression. I hope that Democrat volunteers are out helping people get their ID (if they need help). If I lived in a state that had these issues I would volunteer, however I live in Calif. and we don't have issues like voter supression here. Keep up the good work. We have to re-elect President Obama.
Yep, he is right where he wants to be. Which golf course is that? Prez Zero is toast, time for a very long vacation
Now beloved President Eisenhower is a hero to golfers for popularizing the game and playing close to 1,000 rounds while in office.
George P. Shultz tells of meeting Ike after Nixon nominated him as Secretary of Labor. Here's what Ike told him:
"Young man, let me tell you something. You are going to work 14 hours a day, seven days a week for the government, and you are going to think you are doing your job. Here is what I want you to know. If that's what you do, there is no way you'll be able to do your job."
good news. and well this also has to help the down ticket races as well.
Don't get complacent, folks! There's a whole lot that can happen between now and Election Day. Keep working, keep contributing, and DO NOT NEGLECT TO VOTE.
Neil "fact-checker" Newhouse is going to make up some more of that
newhouse"new" information to make that margin reverse, or at least try anyway.For these last couple of weeks, I was amped up enough to actually respond to certain facebook "friends" (actually family or I'd de-friend them) when they said Obama was a socialist, or bad for the middle class. I even posted the deficit graph.
In the interest of preserving the family peace, I have decided to stop posting political content there. Posting something like the graph above isn't a discussion, it's just gloating.
I've been trying to keep my political views off FB, too, but I can't resist responding to the truly uninformed comments. Whereas on Twitter, for sport, I sometimes troll the RWNJs to provoke them.
Never stop countering your friends and relatives. They vote and they need to be told they are wrong. Yep, it might cause fractious family gatherings. So what? A lie is never to be countenanced, not unless it saves the life of a girl in an attic.
Yes and no. At least in the immediate family, the only one who's at all in the bubble is the ex-wife (the kids range from humoring her to barely tolerating her.) Speaking from more than 30 years' experience, ain't nothin' I say gonna bend her towards anything like rational thought.
Not that she's stupid, mind. Just impervious.
We need to counter lies and misleading information...especially on Facebook and elsewhere. But no point in posting poll results like this if you're an Obama supporter...just serves to fire up Romney/Republican supporters and make Obama supporters overconfident. It's still a pretty tight race that a one or two "bad days" for Obama can easily reverse.
So gloat. WE deserve it--Reps don't hesitate to be smug given half the chance. But keep posting facts--that's the most important thing you can do--counter the lies.
What did they day about FDR when he and his Congress started the WPA and Social Security? The real issue is that Democrats want to use our tax monies to better social, economic and health issues for Americans while the GOP says you're on your own. I wonder if GOP voters have thought about what would happen to them if Romney/Ryan is elected. They probably will kick in with the Ryan tax plan to give the rich more tax breaks and kill Medicare and Medicaide. What they aren't thinking about is the call they will receive from the rest home that their parents are in with the rest home saying the parents have to get out since they don't have Medicaide to pay for their care anymore.
They are learning the lesson of Rick Perry. You can only get so far on good hair, eventually people want to know what is going on under that lovely coif.
LOL, I live in Illinois, so I know about politics and hair, aka, Blagovich, currently serving a 14 or 16 year sentence, either way I can't hear the sound of his voice nor Drew Peterson.
Both Jimmy Carter and Dukakis lead after the Dem convention, both lost. Remember WI, neck and neck according to polls, and Walker....walked away with it. I do hope it stays up and lazy Obama voters stay home thinking it's in the bag.
I agree we need to make sure that we keep Democrats motivated and work on the get out the vote effort. Can't let your guard down. Let's keep the momentum going, but we gotta work to make it happen!
Great point Eric! Let's work to keep the Democrats in power!
Yes, we need another 6T+ in debt, 8%+ unemployment, and Gov't in every aspect of our lives, but according to the left it's about gay marriage and free contraceptives.
Those are lies. Carter did NOT lead after the Democratic convention, and neither did Dukakis. That's another example of the GOP lying to try and keep from hitting the panic button.
The problem with your statement, Eric, is the entire statement in of itself.
You do not and can not inherent a war, economic depression and stock collapse without tapering. Your facts are wrong, faulty, disproved and above all, somewhat hilarious.
Equally hilarious is your last argument. Because somehow, on a government level, taking away the rights and liberties of others (issues such AS gay marriage and the ability to have an abortion/attain free contraceptives/ federally or government funded institutes, programs and clinics that world towards the health of all) is not government involvement at all.
I'll allow you to stew on that one.
Thank you, Jeff. Are there no limits to how far the Right will go to delude themselves?
Looks like it's about time for people to look up the lovely term, "Gish Gallop."
And if'n any of y'all have connections in the Obama campaign, you might pass on that advice.
Dukakis was reported, not sure of the Times source, but it was reported as such, but he was pretty much a loser from day 1.
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/26/us/dukakis-lead-widens-according-to-new-poll.html
Carter showed leading in Gallup into October.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/110548/gallup-presidential-election-trialheat-trends-19362004.aspx#2
Is it just a knee "jerk" reaction to call out lie for the left?
LOL!!!
Trolls got nothing!!!
LOL!!
If Romney loses, then Jeb Bush wins because he can run in 2016. I would not be surprised if Daddy Bush and friends are secretly working against Romney to clear the way for Jeb Bush. However, there is a large stumbling block to that nomination. If Romney loses, then the radicals are going to blame Romney for being too moderate. The Republicans doubled down on Bush economics with this election. So the Republicans are likely to double down on the crazy and double double down on Bush economics for 2016. The Republican party is becoming a battleground for the regular Republicans and the Koch Bros./Tea Party radicals and the latter seems to be controlling the party. That makes it difficult for Jeb Bush to unite both factions by 2016 and run as a moderate.
As a fiscal conservative I'd like to point out a big difference between us and Tea-baggers, we want government paid for first. If that means cuts, cut. If that means raise taxes, raise taxes. It may not be the most popular standpoint, but it is the most economical sensible standpoint. If Mitt-staken on everything is elected or in 2016 we get Bush v3.0, I fear I will be forced to move to Canada as I don't want to deal with that huge tax-cut/deregulation fiscal implosion that will happen. It'll make Europe look like vacation and the great Depression will be a walk in the park. I don't agree with everything Obama's done, but the worst of his policies in my mind are better than the best policy that Mitt-staken refuses to explain. Even my 11 year old asked how he can cut taxes, increase military and entitlement spending and still balance the budget. I told him "Son, in the land of make-believe, anything can happen. Here in the real world, the electorate just foots the bill and holds the bag and hopes for better days ahead." Then I told him to start practicing O, Canada!
When the Tea Party doesn't manage to "take their country back" this time, perhaps moderate republicans will manage to "take their party back" from the extremists.
I kinda doubt it, but you never know.
Personally, I would think it would be best for both parties, and the country, if there is no pseudo-incumbent/establishment candidate running. No Bush, no Clinton, no Biden, no Ryan.
Let's get some fresh ideas and new blood from the moderate governors in the states.
For the moderate Republicans, the best and only way out of this dilemma is for the Tea Party to get tossed out in this election so that moderates would be less likely to face primary challenges in the next elections. That would make it easier for the moderates to squeeze Grover Norquist on his pledge and let the Republicans make changes in the tax code without calling it a tax increase. If Norquist sees no base of support to left to challenge moderate Republicans, he is going to be forced to accommodate the moderates or face an outright abandonment of the pledge. Norquist is not going to like losing influence on tax policy, but his choices are limited. Human nature will dictate the accommodation of moderates unless Norquist is as crazy as the Tea Party.
The thing is if you actually had a debate between a conservative and a liberal in which both were trying to tackle the issue of the budget and both weren't being hyperbolic, party-line toters, and if both weren't morons you actually might be able to come to compromise. Let's raise some revenues here, cut some spending there, and make sure we're doing it in a way that isn't going to have drastic effects.
But that's not the dichotomy we get. The dichotomy is either a. you choose spending cuts that are going to WILDLY cause damage to the middle-class and poor or b. you choose spending cuts that are modest and will mostly hurt the poor.
There isn't a discussion about give and take, there isn't a discussion about our responsibility as a government to take care of our citizens (hell the Republican Party at this point in time doesn't seem to believe that such a responsibility exists), there isn't even a discussion about waste, fraud, and abuse. I bet there are all kinds of changes we could make from reforming the tax code to having each individual bureaucracy audited for expenditures that we might be able to cut to take spending down. But that requires from our government a willingness to micromanage between the states and the federal level while simultaneously to hold a stringent line. And right now I don't think you have people in office who want to be that flexible. It's either this black and white solution or that black and white solution because that makes our donors happy. And if it makes our donors happy then screw everyone else. Or so it seems to me.
Huh, Cartoon, you made sense that time, who knew? I agree we need to find common ground, from both sides. While I don't think the President is solely responsible for this, he is primarily so as President.
Every Republican mouthpiece will tell you the 1994 Gingrich Congress was responsible for the Clinton boom.
Every Republican mouthpiece will tell you the 2000 Pelosi Congress was responsible for the Bush bust.
Every Republican mouthpiece will tell you the 2010 Boehner Congress was responsible for...no, wait.
Now it's not Congress, it's the President!
Huh? You don't think he's totally to blame but because he's president, he's totally to blame?
Do Republicans think the presidency bestows some sort of magic powers? "Climb that wall, but you can't use rope. Or your hands & feet". That's the freaking argument going on it seems to me. Obama is to blame because he didn't accomplish X regardless of the circumstances of the GOP resistance. But, when he did get something done regardless of the circumstances of the GOP resistance ... he's a tyrant.
Don't forget his failed economic policies, like the auto bailout, and the jobs and infrastructure bill the House wouldn't vote on, and the farm bill the House wouldn't vote on and, uh, uh...
Wait a minute Eric! you just complained above about Democrats and now you're complaining that we don't get along. Do you not see the inherent problem here? How can we get along if you're always trying to find people to blame?
For the record we are not 16trillion in debt. For the last damn time people the 16 trillion you're seeing is projected debt over 10 years. Read the damn chart next time from the CBO instead of just looking at the end number. Debt does not start over at 0 for each administration. You act as though Obama himself added 6$ trillion in debt. Obama has not spent 6$ trillion during his presidency. Now he has spent about 3$trillion. If you want to attack him for that then at the least you'd be correct. The remaining 3$trillion had to do with carryover from the Bush Administration and from the recession. Because, again, when we talk about the US debt we are talking about projected debt: debt projections made under the Bush Administration (valued around 10-12trillion$ over 10 years and around 16$trillion over 20 years) carry over to the Obama Administration just as they will carry over to the next administration. It doesn't start over at 0 with each president. Even if a president came in and did nothing the debt would still continue to rise because it rolls over. You can't blame any one particular administration for the existence of debt. You can blame administrations for the spending that takes place under their term that increases the projected debt, but not things that were given to them. You talk about wanting to work together, but we cannot do this unless you're willing to put YOUR partisanship aside and have a serious discussion.
Eric can't help the fact he was born lacking frontal lobes.
The problem Romney faces is that it seems the more people see and hear of him, the less they like him. He has almost unlimited funds to devote to advertising (when you throw in the super PAC money that doesn't coordinate with the campaign **wink wink**), but the more he attempts positive advertising the more likely he is to see his favorability fall (to know Mitt Romney is to ... Meh), so that leaves massive spending on negative campaigning. He can't raise his boat, so he will have to sink Obama. His problem is that Obama IS A LIKEABLE GUY. Negative ads are unlikely to persuade the undecided and more likely to turn them off to Mitt. Despite all his verbal gymnastics in not taking a firm stand on any policy whatsoever, his personality has him trapped between a rock and hard place.
The question of coordinating ads with PACs is kinda like asking whether the gas stations are engaged in price-fixing. They don't have to meet and agree, they just have to look across the street and see the signs. Likewise, Romney can put an ad up in one market (or on the internet) and the PAC can put a similar one up somewhere else.
Last week, Dr. Maddow made a pretty big deal over Mitt Romney's upcoming, high-profile interview. She strongly suggested that, by applying a modicum of real journalism on behalf of the public, Mr. Romney might be compelled to clarify his Party's hilarious and/or alarming and/or dishonest positions on a variety of issues, including it truly medieval views on rape, abortion, etc. Since David Gregory has (once again) let an opportunity for genuine public dialogue on genuinely vital issues slip away by (once again) spectacularly failing to use his privileged position to commit real journalism, I wonder what Dr. Maddow will have to say tonight about her colleague's persistent habit of abdicating of his professional responsibilities when they are needed the most?
Gregory actually tried (for once), at least in the weirdly staged, no-girls-allowed rooftop clubhouse scene. The real problem is, he's just not all that bright. I think most of his brainpower is focused on trying to make "objective" and "serious" faces for the camera.
David Gregory is the sorriest excuse for a political journalist ever. How NBC ever picked him to fill Tim Russert's shoe's is beyond comprehension. I can't even turn the show on anymore.
When the great Tim Russert passed away, I was so overwhelmingly sad. I was never a big fan of David Gregory (though I feel he is generally a nice man). I think you hit the nail on the head with his being more focused on looking "objective" and "serious" for the camera -- he always falls short though in these big interviews. He smiles and nods along when he is clearly being fed a crock of lies instead of pushing hard to reveal the tough answers the public is hoping to hear. I think politicians must know that they can go on Meet The Press now and do their usual talking-points-mumbo-jumbo and get away with it because David Gregory comes off as a bit of a pushover. I don't think anyone can compare to Tim Russert but I was (and still am) in awe that Mr. Gregory is hosting the show. Personally, I wish that someone like Andrea Mitchell would have taken over in her dear friend's former role.
There was a time when broadcast news was used as a method of fulfilling the requirement that radio and TV stations, and by extension their networks, serve the public interest. Also, the huge egos who formed these networks, guys like Sarnoff and Paley, valued their news divisions for the prestige they brought to the network, and to the huge egos of the founders.
Now they're expected to make money. Period.
But I should probably add that now there's a symbiotic relationship between these shows and their guests. No guests, no show. So you can't be too "mean" if you want them to keep showing up.
Tim Russert was only "good" in comparison with the competition. On an objective scale of Good" he was about a 30 out of 100 - which looks good when the best of the competition is a 5 out of 100.
Yes, it is definitely a difficult act to balance being a hard-hitting journalist and being nice enough so that a politician will likely return to your show for future interviews.
to TEAM OBAMA!!!
Romney must win the swing states of Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Virginia in order to win. The odds of that happening are around 20%. That puts Obama's reelection odds at 80%. I believe Obama will win the popular vote by around 1 million votes and get 332 of the electoral votes to Romney's 206.. Obama will win all four swing states that Romney needs and he will be reelected by a comfortable margin.
Obama 51%
Romney 47%
Other 2%
Honestly, I think that there's going to be an October surprise or two, both of them favoring Obama. First, I think that there's going to be some Romney tax revelation that's going to destroy him. Proof that he paid no income tax, or proof that he engaged in illegal dealings with his assets.
Second, I believe that Israel will strike at Iran's nuclear facilities, probably with the aid of the US military.
If both of those scenarios happen, I don't see Romney getting more than 40% of the popular vote. If only one happens, he might get 45%. If things just continue the way they are, he'll be lucky to crack 46%.
I also think these polls overestimate Romney's likely voters, because I'd be willing to wager that many people are saying they'll vote Romney as a protest. But, when it comes down to the wire, I don't believe that they'll vote for him. Especially older voters. As more and more seniors and older folks learn about Ryancare, with it's Groupons for insurance, they're going to be utterly turned off.
heh, how about Romney didn't pay his church the tithe he's touted as a revelation in his taxes? :)
I agree that there's a pretty high chance of a tactical strike. I hope not, just more pandering to the GOP.
Israel has been told in no uncertain terms that the tail is no longer wagging the dog and to stfu. When the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs says the US is not interested in being "complicit" with the Israelis (and when Israeli intelligence heads and military heads are against it) it doesn't really matter what Nitwityahoo and the Jewish Nazis of the Israeli Right want; the only way they're going to get to play war hero is if His Morontologist Majesty Mittwit wins.
Netanyahu made a clever move earlier this year to form a coalition government. Many believe he hoped this show of unity would strengthen his hand against Iran, both diplomatically and domestically. Unfortunately for him, this coalition recently fell apart over domestic issues.
I am not an Israeli politician who's trying to hold onto his job, so I can't criticize Netanyahu too much. Also, I have little doubt he sincerely believes he's acting in his country's best interests. But a quote from a retired security official accused Netanyahu of making decisions "based on messianic feelings."
So, before some dingbat here starts accusing TC and calling him names for "Jewish Nazis of the Israeli Right," remember that here at home we don't have to love our current government to love our country, and besides, many Israelis feel as TC does.
Coming soon: The Band Wagon Effect.
As it becomes clear that Obama will win, down-ballot Dems will feel safer in identifying with him and the Dem agenda. Running against the do-nothing GOP House may allow the Dems to re-capture the House and keep the Senate.
Big donors will stop giving to Mitt; saving their cash or spending it on electable republicans. Down-ballot races become the focus, boosting enthusiasm and participation nationwide. But even if the GOP keeps the House, a second Obama term means that the Tea-party agenda is a failure. Hopefully at least a little cooperation ensues.
It's already happening. Did you see all those Dems at the convention, owning a whole bunch of issues - Obamacare, abortion, gay marriage - that they were running away from as recently as this spring?
It's like the Scared Rabbit Party did a mind-meld with Alan Grayson or something, and came out ready to kick ass.
I used to get upset at the way Democrats would lose bladder control and descend into backstabbing and lifeboat hoarding and off the record recrimination orgies, and generally behave like the panic stricken lady in Jaws who just stood in surf screaming when the polls turned sour. Thought it was some kind of uniquely Democratic thing, some symptom of the twenty years of internalized abuse from the GOP and the MSM.
But, honestly, having seen Republicans do the same thing thing in two consecutive elections, I have to concede I was being too hard on them. I guess it's just the way of politics and human nature.
Molly Ivins once said that she didn't start betting on political races until 6 weeks before election and she also said she was one who made a lot of money off her bets.
This bump is definitely good to see; however I worry about over-confidence on the Democrat side. The economy is not as strong as I would like and there's still a lot of work and debating to be done.
Wake me up when the Yard Signs bloom.
I live in a Republican-dominated precinct. At present, but a single Romney sign is posted. For Bush, there were dozens. The GOP doesn't like their nominee much. No wonder about that. He's a lying, ruthless weasel.
Trust Us - the new GOP motto and answer for everything they don't want to give a truthful answer to.
This Thursday, PA Supreme Court starts hearing the Voter ID appeal. The Court is short on Judge and is evenly divided 3 Dems and 3 GOPs. The President of Court is J. Ron Castile. He and Gov. Ed Rendell were buds as ADAs together back in the good ole days long, long ago in Philadelphia. According to Ed, while Ron is a Republican, he will "do he right thing." The Guv has faith in his buddy. I'm trying to, but am holding my breath.
You wouldn't believe the hoops one has to jump through just because one does not drive or have a passport. Even other Gov. issued ID - if it does not have an unexpired expiration date won't get you in the voting booth. If you are 18 and live at home, but because your parents pay the bills and you don't have an electric bill and/or lease to prove you live at that address, your parent is supposed to come with you to the DMV and swear out an affidavit!! Hello!
If you are homeless, you have to have someone from a shelter who can prove they work for the shelter with the proper I.D. has to come to the DMV and swear out an affidavit. On and on and on it goes.
Normally, I would say that a good mix of Dems and GOP in the government is a good thing and keeps things in check, but until we find a way to identify if the Grand Old Party still exists, I say let's remember the down ticket and VOTE THEM OUT so POTUS has some sane folks to work with. Also, since the GOP are big on "the people have spoken" and mandates, let's give them one there is no denying.
I would also like to hedge our bets that, God Forbid!, should POTUS not win re-election, RoMoney faces a Demoratic House and Senate. That's the only kind of "taking back" I want.
Go Dems; Go Dems!
We all recognize that America's (USA) education infrastructure is vital to our economic success and is critical to our national security. Romney/Ryan has produced a policy paper on their educational plans. What is not said is that the plan is not going to be funded. The Romany/Ryan plan focuses on for profit colleges and reduction in graduate school support. To meets his goals, at least a 40% reduction in college aid will be implemented. What does this mean for our number one competitive advantage? That is, our colleges and universities? Simply put, it will mean that many if not most colleges will be hit hard. They will be required to layoff teachers and cut back on critical programs -- engineering, science and graduate studies. This will have a long term impact on the economy, and will increase the number of foreign visas to staff the industries of the future. Jobs will not go to our citizens.
If you are a Republican, Democrat, Independent, etc., you need to alert your colleges and universities to engage them in fighting the gutting of America's long term economic educational infrastructure.
john - thanks for that post. In my mind, this is THE most important factor in the long term economic success of this country. If our educational system lags behind even 10% of the rest of the world, everything else will follow. And the children of the privileged aren't nearly enough (in numbers or intellect) to keep us competitive; everyone needs the chance to succeed, regardless of the family into which they are born.
I really hope that Obama does win, but Romney has so much money, and I'm worried that he could just carpet bomb every state with campaign adverts for the next two months, which might be enough to change opinion. Also it's in Romney's interests to come over as the underdog, as that will keep his base motivated to vote, and might mean that Democrats stay at home if they think that Obama is going to win anyway.
You may be right about Romney's base being motivated by underdog status, but Obama has a much better ground game. I think our GOTV efforts on the ground will negate the motivation of the GOP base. Plus I think all of the ads by Romney and his PACs are going to turn as many people off as they will win over. I'm not swayable anyway, but my mute button is getting a good workout.
Here's how desperate R-money/R-Ayn supporters have become: just last week in Wolfeboro, NH, where the R-moneys summer in their mansion on the lake, several large, expensive Obama/Biden signs were either stolen or shredded within hours after they went up. (WMUR-TV in Manchester, NH did a story on it over the weekend.) So, they look us in the eye and lie to our faces with their pants on fire, and engage in vandalism and theft. How pitiful.
Why should the ground troops behave any differently than the leadership?
"Romney is an awkward, unlikable candidate" YES, this was the problem a year ago and it's getting worse as voters see more of him, hear more from him and like him even less. Hence, the now more exciting graph.
I agree. I am unsure why Republican donors are pouring cash into Romney's campaign. He is running a TON of ads in Ohio and the state is moving towards Obama. It's not working. At some point soon (probably after he looses the first debate when he stumbles several times as predicted) they are going to have to shut off the money. Things can change, but trends now predict an 80% chance that Obama is re-elected.. you DON'T donate to the other guy when it gets this bad.
However, that only counts people who intend to vote -- it doesn't take into consideration whether they actually will, or whether their votes will be counted if they do.
A five-point advantage is not nearly enough, especially in Ohio where the Secretary of State plays fast and loose with vote counting. As long as voter suppression tactics are in place in key states, and with Diebold voting machines continuing to slant races in favor of Republicans, Obama will need at least a ten-point lead to overcome Republican election-stealing.
this from Think Progress,, seems to be some good news for the two men.
FIRED ELECTIONS OFFICIALS SUE OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION | Two Montgomery County board of election members are suing Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted for wrongful termination after they voted to allow early voting on weekends. Husted immediately suspended and then fired them for defying his state-wide directive restricting voting to weekdays only. Dennis Lieberman and Tom Ritchie, who have served on the board for a collective 28 years, filed the federal lawsuit Monday morning.
Dont you worry, all we want is to suppress the dead vote. Should be a landslide for Romney with all the cemeteries locked up
Actually mildly amusing. So the dead only vote on weekends?
Hey, your opening sentence has an error - I think the writer meant to say "... with many in the GOP cautiously optimistic [about] the presidential race."
Just wanted to point that out if it hasn't been pointed out already :)
VERY exciting news! I was looking forward to seeing the bounce that Obama would get from the DNC and I am very happy to see him looking better going into the debates.
My biggest worry is that Romney has such an enormous advantage money-wise that he can drown the few swing states in misleading ads. I am HOPING that they will run their ads, maybe get desperate and make some really awful ones too... and then by the time the debates come the public will get to SEE these guys debate. And I definitely think Obama will clobber Romney in the debates. Mitt gets so uncomfortable --- especially about foreign policy -- so I say, bring on the debates. If anyone is swayed by Romney's massive negative ads they will hopefully come to their senses during the debates as they see a President who can lead and a super-rich business fool try to awkwardly laugh his way through major American issues.
be happy to see Obama has bough in more the robmehood this last month.
also robmehood cannot use lots of the money he has taken in.
Also, for myself at least, I am REALLY looking forward to Stephen Colbert's Super PAC ads to run right before the election. I am hoping he has raised enough money to run some great ads pro-Obama that can get some attention. We know he has at least a million dollars and I am looking forward to seeing what his team comes up with!
Ann Coulter was right. "We nominate Romney and we will lose."