Getty Images
It's easy to forget, but ever election cycle, presidential campaigns assure anyone who will listen that they are, in fact, certain to win. Whether they actually believe this is irrelevant -- candidates and their aides always make this bold prediction with great confidence to reporters, donors, and supporters, usually with a straight face.
The trick, of course, is to take the bravado with a grain of salt. Some seem to have forgotten this detail.
A top Romney aide told Politico the other day, "We're going to win. Seriously, 305 electoral votes." Folks like Mike Allen seem to find the talk credible.
As Jon Chait explained, he shouldn't -- the bluster is a "bluff."
Romney is carefully attempting to project an atmosphere of momentum, in the hopes of winning positive media coverage and, thus, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Over the last week, Romney's campaign has orchestrated a series of high-profile gambits in order to feed its momentum narrative.... [T]he widespread perception that Romney is pulling ahead is Romney's campaign suckering the press corps with a confidence game.
Folks who followed the 2000 race closely may recall Karl Rove's "inevitability" gambit. At the time, Bush/Cheney aides told reporters the ticket had already locked up 320 electoral votes and success was inevitable. The tactic was meant to demoralize Democrats, reassure Republicans, and persuade reporters -- most of whom already hated Al Gore -- to cover the race through a Bush-is-a-winner-with-momentum lens.
Yes, Bush was ultimately inaugurated, but he lost the popular vote and needed five justices on the Supreme Court to stop a vote-count in Florida in order to win. "Inevitability" was a con the political world fell for 12 years ago, so Team Romney is trying it again, and with two weeks to go, it's already starting to work on some reporters.
For the record, Romney may very well end up winning. President Obama is probably a very slight favorite at this point, but it's easy to imagine the challenger doing just well enough to succeed. The candidates and their aides sound confident, but they have to sound confident; it's part of the game.
As an objective matter, the notion that Romney has the wind at his back and his cruising towards victory is kind of silly, and it's the kind of hype media professionals should consider suspect.
Leave a Comment:
What's the story about Tagg Romney's company owning the voting machines used in Ohio and other states? Maybe that's why Willard is feeling so confident.
Truth out reports:
Both The Nation and New York Times confirm the connection between the Romney family, Solamere and the Bain Capital investment in the voting machine company, Hart Intercivic, whose board of directors serve H.I.G. Capital.
The voting machines are also being used in Texas, Oklahoma, Washington and Colorado.
Source: http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/13221476-romney-family-buys-voting-machines-through-bain-capital-investment
7 November 2012: And in surprising news today, Mitt Romney carried Washington State with an eight-point margin.
Washington state uses mail-in, not machines.
Uh, yeah. The ballots are filled out and mailed. Are you saying they are tabulated by hand???
Maybe this will be the last straw to break the camel's back, there's sure a lot of straws piling up. Just show that picture. I'm going to have to watch Little House on the Prairie before I go to bed now, what a nightmare.
So how does Obama counter?
If I was Obama, I'd say "if they really thought that, they wouldn't be saying it."
sounds too much like a koan. reporters don't do contemplation.
They already countered. Axelrod said something to the effect of "in two weeks, you're going to find out which one of us was bluffing."
Nate Silver puts Romney at having an 30% chance to win against Obama's 70% chance. Those odds look to me like the only thing that's inevitable is a final litany of lies from Romney when he gives his concession speech. And we'll probably get an epic tantrum or two thrown in just for good measure, too.
"...Romney is carefully attempting to project an atmosphere of momentum, in the hopes of winning positive media coverage and, thus, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy."
This is where Fox News fits in
By convincing the republican base that the mainstream media has a liberal bias they effectivly isolate already low information voters into a bubbling cauldron filled with Romney TV adds, political misinformation and propaganda until they are in mortal danger of drowning in hype. When they are pronounced "done" they will be ladled out and sent to the polls to stamp the republican ticket in Red White and Blue ink.
You really can buy an election in this country but only if the American people are willing to sell it for shiny beads and trinkets.
Sounds like a horse trade.
Dragoon21b----- Take a look at the stock market lately, obama at it's best. Du Pont, 3M planning layoffs. I guess you can print more money, watching the dollar fall off the shelf.
Bronz I am honestly getting tired of your nonsence but since you insist here is a nice big mug of STFU...
http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/08/14299378-gm-now-hiring-10000-information-technology-workers?lite
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EDJI#symbol=^dji;range=1y;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;
Have a nice day
Dragoon21b...isn't this just the "free market" doing it's thing? How on earth is Obama responsible for companies underperforming? Can't have it both ways.
Somehow I don't think we were looking at the same things. The link I posted about GM wanting to hire 10,000 people I would say speaks for itself and the other link is the Dow going back a year. There are a couple of low points but nothing that was either catastrophic or sustained and the market has continued a steady climb upward. You can pick virtually any metric you like, but the point is the sky isn't falling no matter what the doomsayers have to offer.
Maybe Dupont and 3M are Romney contributers and they will save billions in taxes if Mitt wins so they can afford a little wall street hanky panky???? I believe they will do anything to win....they are all radical Republicans, Teapublicans, and down right weirdos....The Democrats need to get out and vote and not let this happen....
Meanwhile Intel and Microsoft are up, as are several technology stocks (including my employer, who shall remain nameless.)
Oh, I'm sorry -- did I spoil the rotten-cherry picking?
"so Team Romney is trying it again, and with two weeks to go, it's already starting to work on some reporters"
I can't imagine who or why. It has been over 4 months since Electoral-Vote.com had Obama under 270. Nate still shows Obama at 70% today; Intrade isn't far behind. As most elections do, this one has tightened a bit in a stretch, but Obama's lead has been a stable and quite resilient feature of this race. After last night, there is nothing Romney can do to change that dynamic on his own -- he has to hope for (a) an Obama unforced error, (b) an exogenous event, and (c) that his side cheats a lot better than they campaign.
I am in Ohio and I am seriously worried about the cheating. Josh Mandel seems way too confident for how far behind he is in the polls. There is something rotten about to happen.
There's time. Just run a few thousand pre-counted test ballets by a impartial third party, say someone from Britian, through those Ohio machines and see what they do.
Testing computer software should be damn easy in this day and age. Kids do it. Why can't honest adults? Emphasis on honest.
Back in the day, I used to think the profession of "reporter" was an honorable one, but today, they are indeed the "ink-stained wretches" they always were back in the days of the partisan press. There was really only ever that 20-year period in the 60s and 70s where actual "journalism" was committed (I was one on a small level), and today Woodward is a clerk-typist-stenographer to the rich and powerful and the Washington Post editorial board would, if they could, go back and apologize to Tricky Dick Nixon for the trouble the paper caused him.
"...with two weeks to go, it's already starting to work on some reporters."
Mr. Williams, Mr. Pelley and Ms. Sawyer: Why have none of you asked the old man behind the curtain how he can pretend to believe in America (...these truths to be self evident..) when he supports attempts to disenfranchise US citizens?
Why have you not asked the rev. Graham, Sen. McCain, anyone named Bush or Akin, or ANY republican how they can support someone who thinks stealing the right to vote is ever justifiable?
In looking at other articles Sorry MS Maddow I do read at some other sites :)
Anyway I'm struck by the way polls are taken and how they might not represent minorities in real time. Say if (as many do) a poll was taken only via land lines that poll would skew to a predominantly white elderly sector. Most Latinos and Asians use only cell phones to save money as do many younger white and AA families. What I am saying this election is like no other as the way a poll is taken has not kept up with how the electorate lives. There may be a growing number of uncounted voters for either candidate than first thought. This is just my opinion but it may need some further looking into.
Many polls now use Likely Voters to do their polling. And they get to define who Likely Voters are. And they 'know' that lazy Latinos don't vote, right? And that Democrats might not vote, and women might not, etc etc etc.
So they always assume that "Likely Voters" are white male Republicans. End of story.
This is Rove's belief in the 'bandwagon' effect. But really, remember when he had "the math"?
I am of that opinion also. Don't know how accurate it is but... yeah
I have worked a phone bank and I can tell you that most people do not answer their phones (thanks to caller ID--I use it too) and the people who do are older and often prefer not to tell you for whom they are voting.
Watching Martin Bashir with some video clip's of last night's debate.Is it me or does the look on Romney's face say, let's get this overwith,I gotta fart.
He already farted and is waiting for applause from his sycophants.
It may have been time to replace his bandages.
Watching the debate, my wife and I were both fairly certain the Romney fought to hold in a couple of burps while Obama was speaking. And I gotta say - the picture above of Romney seems to need a caption of "Damn, that laxative I took is kicking in too early!"
He did look mighty uncomfortable and very afraid something bad might erupt from him at any moment. I guess Iran needs Syria to get to the sea was a little bit he let out ...
That is scary because the only way Romney can win is by fraud or stealing the election. The press is used to make winning credible so stealing the election will not seem plausible.
Regardless of what the press or the polls say Obama will win in a landslide because Romney is not credible on ANY issue. He offers no solutions and is a proven liar unmatched by any presidential candidate in modern history.
The only votes Romney will get is by party members who vote for any republican no matter who they are. Romney is counting on voter suppression and election fraud and no serious person should even suggest he could win the popular vote by any other method. Obama is just superior in every way and deserves a second term. Any other outcome would be a travesty.
The only issue he has to be creditable on is the R on his voter card, the loyalists will line up.
The right can't even call themselves moral any more. It's laughable. They tossed even their most staunch pet issues, abortion (profitting from Stericycle? Fingers in ears) and Christianity (Mormonism is no longer a cult when there is a black Democrat in the White House) to try to put this vapid characterless (but photogenic) rich husk in office.
All credibility on the right is gone. That leaves them free to vote for anything.
Many people don't care if Romney is credible or not, just as long as he is not Obama. Scary, but true.
but the cheat machine is "full steam ahead" worried......
Campaign technocrats on both sides use this technique. Recall Hillary Clinton's inevitability for 2008, and the rev 2.0 version for 2016.
The idea is to persuade citizens not to vote:
As Hayes points out in his MSNBC spot, there is something innately profane about trying to suppress the vote. Yet when it comes time for Dems to look at electoral reforms that would encourage near 100% turnout, they demure.
Do away with the electoral college so this is not the election of the president of Ohio or Florida race? Why should a voter in Ohio or Florida get a more heavily weighted vote because I live in a deeply red or blue state?
Do away with First past the post voting so that third party candidates are no longer spoilers? This too is derided as fanciful. Preferential voting may be sensible and may be used or has been used for city and state races since the 19th century, but doing it for national office is simply too frightening for the duopolists on power known as the Democratic and Republican national parties.
National holiday on election day, with one month early voting required in all states?
A constitutional amendment to override citizen's united?
.
We are told these are all naive fantasies. They will never happen.
So don't bother even talking about it.
It's my hope that decent hard-working voters are not fooled by the ever widening array of Republican shenanigans and will make their displeasure known on November 6th.
We have a good president who is actually helping the US recover from the previous Republican shenanigans. Those who want to vote Obama out will do so under the flimsiest of reasons and the worst of human characteristics.
We want the Obama USA, not the Romney USA.
What is exceptionally sad is that this will be decided by superficial impressions about form, not substance. This was not a pattern resulting from billion dollar budgets allowed by citizen's united.
The President in the first debate annihilated his challenger's positions with facts, but this was insufficient. When asked to name a specific policy to combat terrorism, the president cited his aggressive policy to combat nuclear proliferation. Barbara Walters noted that neither candidate responded to her question. Yet thirty years later we realize how very wrong she was, and how central it is to the threat posed by terrorists who got hold of an nuke from sponsors in Pakistan, Iran, Libya or iraq.
Carter was nothing short of prophetic not just on the key threat terrorists posed, but in his responses on energy, economic and middle eastern policy.
Yet form won out over substance.
There is an inability of people to question conventional thinking on any subject. Today, most people believe the reality molded for them. Carter is universally regarded as having a failed presidency, and of being soundly defeated in the first debate. The American voter is being suckered again. Barbara Walters is still there, offering help to her pal Roger Ailles. Just send Ann- I'll put her on the View- my audience will find her credible and deliver a large number of GOP women back to Romney.
"There you go again."
And it has far more to do with managing group think than the number of dollars in the campaign. It has to do with the real ability of individuals to think critically. In watching the performance of MSNBC elites after the first debate, it is shocking how easily they can be played for fools.
I live in a Red State, I am outnumbered by Republican friends and family....I argue every day that President Obama has done a good job and we are recovering....But the main thing is they are red neck christian evangelicals who don't believe in abortion under any circumstances, hate Obamacare (they believe the lies about it)and are in line with the Republicans in congress who hate the President (we know why) and I can't get through to them no matter how many facts I have and prove the lies are lies....I am beating my head against a stone wall....this scares me a lot...so many are being fooled....Romney is out for power, he has money so he is bored and needs a new project, and after he raids and outsources jobs, and his supporters get their tax breaks and he appoints two supreme court justices, the US will go down the tubes and we will all be fighting with each other for scraps because all these radical idiots will own the US lock, stock and barrel.......and we may be at war with Iran....unless we can figure out how not to send our soldiers to die for Romney foreign policy....naysayer I am not just really worried that all the voter suppression and lies just might put him in...
Actually, I think he is not interested in the actual power- He is after the appearance of importance, the prestige of the White House. A new bauble to play with. Romney like Bush will be perfectly happy to let the advisers run the country.
Perfect figurehead.
What would Rick Perry do to cheaters in Texas?
Democratic cheaters? Lock 'em up.
Republican cheaters? Help them.
If they're the cheaters who donate to his campaigns, he'd hug them like a bottle of maple syrup!
file://localhost/Users/jonandpatricia/Pictures/iPhoto%20Library/Modified/2012/Oct%2023,%202012/P1000050.jpg
My husband had a nightmare last evening that Romney had won the election. The Romney/Ryan ticket is causing extreme mental duress among some of us. What ever happened to analytical thinking and reason in this country? Where is the enthusiasm I see at the Obama rallies in Romney's followers? I really don't see genuine enthusiasm displayed in the Romney followers! If my photo made it to this site, you can see we have taken bumper stickers to a new level - bicyclists vote too as evidenced by the bumper sticker on my husband's cycling jersey worn today (please note Jon Stewart pointed out that automobiles are still legal under the Obama administration).
I am sooo glad you are discussing this issue. The inevitability lie is just the tip of the iceberg. Romney is now bullying the press just like he bullied the debate moderators. I was sickened to see Chuck Todd and David Gregory fold under the pressure. I remember how the Republicans bullied the media so Bush could divert our troops from Afghanistan to Iraq. Look at the devastating consequences that had for our country. Our democracy depends on the integrity of the media. When I see the media retreat from their responsibility, I get very worried; then, very angry. Please put more pressure on your colleagues to keep the welfare of our nation in mind. They must push back against the Romney lies and bullying tactics. We, the people, will remember who stood for us and who were the cowards during this very important election.
Rachel ought to be addressing the issue of "Inevitability" on the show every chance she gets. This issue must remain in our consciousness until election day. We must not let the Republicans get away with stealing another election. The Democrats must remain vigilant.
It's easy to see why they pull this gambit - it's a winner for them no matter what.
It either a.) creates the false impression described above and pushes Romney across the finish line, or b.) lays the groundwork for them to spend the next 4 years claiming the election was somehow "stolen" and Obama is even less legitimate now than before (i.e. - "there HAD to be vote fraud!! All the credible polls showed Romney winning!!")
lays the groundwork for them to spend the next 4 years claiming the election was somehow "stolen" and Obama is even less legitimate now than before
Unfortunately I think both sides will say this depending on who wins - look at a lot of these posts here already impying that if Romney wins, it will be illegal. This is what we have become as a nation in the last few Presidential elections. IF what a lot of people here are saying is true about this election and the past elections, how did Obama win in 2008? If the Republicans "stole" the 2000 and 2004 elections, why would they let a Democrat win in 2008?
I do fear that from now on the losing side will cry foul.....even if it isn't close.
Skip:
Having been in Ohio during the 2004 elections, I can assure you that that election was truly stolen and we all know how the 2000 elections were stolen both in Florida and Washington D. C.
Could it possibly be the 2008 elections were not stolen because Karl Rove was not in charge of the GOP Vote theft brigade?
Sometimes conspiracies are really conspiracies!
I always liked the phrase, "Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you."
There are too many people with their hands on the voting machines who have political special interests. Best thing to do is post the code and let the community debug it. Most of the code is just for the interface anyway.
I would like to see online voting available nationwide for 2 weeks. People will be able to verify their votes online and even change their vote. But we would need a national id system that is more comprehensive than what we currently have. Social Security cards are too easy to hack.
I was surprised that Romney's son was allow to get close to the president . He made the comment that he would like to hit our President and they let him get close enough to do just that. He should have been kept away from him.
Someone said he apologized.
I think, while they were shaking hands, Obama said to Tagg, "So, you want a piece of me?" and gave him that steely Obama look. And Tagg crapped his pants.
Tagg is no way so physically dangerous that he could be a threat to the President's life in the time before the PPD took him down. For crying out loud, he's not even that much younger than PBO -- who is in remarkably good condition for a desk jockey his age.
And of course, seeing Romney's son assault the President on live TV? I think PBO would take the chance.
I just refuse to believe the election is as close as the national polls are. I know the press would love to be able to write the angle of Romney winning .
More from Jonathan Chait:
"If you look closely at the boasts emanating from Romney's allies, you can detect a lot of hedging and weasel-words. Rob Portma calls Ohio a "dead heat," which is a way of calling a race close without saying it's tied. A Romney source tells Mike Allen that Wisconsin leans their way owing to Governor Scott Walker's "turnout operation." That is campaign speak for "we're not winning, but we hope to make it up through turnout."
No, both campaigns are not confident.
The difference between Team Obama, and Team Romney, is that Team Obama doesn't need to bluff, because they ARE winning. Yeah, yeah. Anything can happen on election day, but right now, Team Obama IS winning. Team Obama doesn't need to mislead anybody. Team Romney is not as confident as Team Obama, because Team Romney is the one that is bluffing.
I don't believe for one minute, that the media is naïve, and is being punked. The media knows exactly what they are doing. The media hates Barack Obama, and they want him to lose. The media didn't just start this Mitt Romney momentum crap. It's been going on for weeks. The media declared Mitt Romney the 45th president right after the first presidential debate.
"weasel-words" I like that.
I don't believe that the media hate Obama; back in the days of low-wage, ink-stained reporters, reporters were really lower middle class and usually sympathetic to the Democratic Party principles; now-a-days, they are upper middle and lower-upper class wretches and naturally sympathetic to their own social and economic class, the modern day Republican Party.
I personally know a number of national reporters from my 25 year experience as a lobbyist in a state legislature and I witnessed their changing political and social positions over the 25 year period that they moved from local to state to national reporters.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/17/tagg-romney-obama_n_1976186.html
Romney master of bait and switch game
Bush had the same confidence and look as Romney appears to have- that the election is in the bag. Fraud is not out of the question with the Right Wing supporters..This scares me !!!!!!!! Also, I noticed the president speaking to Tag after the debate. I would love to know if Obama asked him if he still wants to take a swing at him.( Jokingly, of course) There was a definite reaction from Tag whatever he told him....
". . . it's the kind of hype media professionals should consider suspect."
I guess that tells you why there is a problem.
The MSM is simply not doing it's job.
There are no "journalists" anym ore in the true sense of the word.
Objectivity goes out the window when the threat of losing your job and being blacklisted hangs over your head.
Ezra Klein reports today that the two campaigns basically have different needs in regards to the expectations game. Romney purportedly want the air of inevitability and overconfidence -- to convince skeptical conservatives that they're not wasting their vote on the etcha-sketch moderate -- but that they're in fact genuinely getting rid of Obama -- by showing up to the polls. And the Obama campaign wants to convey the exact opposite: their big fear is overconfidence, and what they're really after is a sense of fear (of a return to GOP rule) to motivate non-energized Democratic base voters to get to the polls.
"Yes, Bush was ultimately inaugurated, but he lost the popular vote and needed five justices on the Supreme Court to stop a vote-count in Florida in order to win."
He didn't need the Supreme Court in order to "win" -- he would have won without them, according to the ten-month-later investigation -- under any combination of recounted-counties and non-recounted-counties that was being sought for by either of the campaigns, the Florida courts, or the Federal courts.
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/nov/12/news/mn-3240
I expect better from a straight "news" anchor on MSNBC.
False and studies by major newspaper organizations show that fact; even the LA Times documented that fact in a study conducted after the article you describe.
Secondly, there was no recount anywhere in Florida, what was conducted was incomplete re-canvasing of votes in several counties; even the recanvasing in Palm Beach County was blocked by the Brooks Brothers riot started by the RNC.
Well that's somewhat being misleading Jap- at least by the article you're linking. It states that by the standards set forth by the supreme court and revisions later on Gore rightfully won the election, but that because of voting shenanigans that went on- specifically it names mismarked ballots- that means Bush would have won. So you're arguing here that Bush would have won, but only if he did as the result of improperly counted votes due to a corrupted system that was designed to help him win.
The point of this article was that Bush only won due to a corrupted system that was designed to help him win. Apparently you're agreeing with that conclusion, but are disagreeing at the way in which that conclusion was reached?