Senate [In-Depth Discussion] United States presidential election: 2012

It seems to me the most logical way to read Romney's latest actions are as an acknowledgement he expects to lose. Among the battleground states, he has multiple "must wins" including Florida and Ohio. He has spent the lion's share of this entire campaign there, and has invested especially heavily in the last few weeks. The only way it would ever make sense to move on from these areas to second tier opportunities is if the main battlegrounds were already decided, either for or against you. Quite clearly--especially in the case of Ohio--the polls don't at all support the idea that the state is a lock for Romney. So it seems more likely that he has decided it's out of reach, and is instead trying to divert to Pennsylvania to make up for it.

 

Reading some of the major Republican websites right now is to read an alternate universe. I'm concerned about Pennsylvania, as I've mentioned, but I'm unconcerned about Ohio and several other battleground states, which most RedState people (among others) see as definitely going Romney's way. Things are much different than in 2008, when it was evident to just about everyone that Obama was going to win. If Obama wins, it won't take long for the chants of "FRAUD!" to start up, because of course the only way Obama can win is through unfair means (in the eyes of the Republican base).

Notable tweet from Josh Marshall of TPM:

Also, here's Bill Clinton tonight in Virginia:

 

Indeed. I figure most in this thread have gathered that I am pretty ambivalent regarding this election, but in the past four days I have come home to visit my family, and talking to my (rich) father has driven home why I slightly prefer that Obama win this election. For the past few days I have heard nothing but rantings about the "scandalous, treasonous, Watergate-esque" handling of Benghazi, not to mention of course the Secret Muslim Birth Certificate BS. I certainly don't think that everyone who wants Romney to win is of this sort, but I think it's fair to say that this posture characterizes the Republican Brand as a whole, and by no means does it deserve to be rewarded come Tuesday.

EDIT: I suppose "ambivalent" mischaracterizes my position as being uncaring of which of either candidate wins. My own personal mildly conservative heart vis-a-vis foreign policy and economics wants Romney to win, but the overall state of the Republican brand is so repulsive that I simply can't hope that they win. Given that, my overall disposition towards either candidate winning will be "cautiously optimistic."

 

I will not feed trolls. On that note, I will throw a link out there for stuff like that in the future to satisfy the rules, but I formally refuse to prove anything beyond that. If a member chooses to harass or troll my posts and links, I will ignore them. Their refusal to recognize my support material will not be my problem.

Just as I see a post linking "snopes" as a post linking nothing at all.

 

You have no point and you certainly don't have evidence. So I expect we'll be seeing very little of you in the future. Godspeed to you.

 

lol, clever troll is not as clever as clever troll thinks.

 

Okay, this has gone on for too long. It stops now.

 

Exactly, actions speak louder than words in campaigns and this is an admission that the electoral map does not favor them.

I think things like the Castro ad and the recklessly misleading Jeep one show desperation inside camp Romney regardless of what they say.

Not that I'm feeling overconfident by any stretch.

 

colley's median method is tracking ole' virginny as a toss up (47-47) today. he previously had it narrowly in Willard's column. be interesting to see what happens there...

humorous sidenote: the blocky representation of the states by electoral vote in this cartogram make me want to invert the colors and label it BIZARRO AMERICA

 

Rhode Island looks so big and important on that map

When Georgia, Arizona, and Texas inevitably join Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia as swing states (and Indiana rejoins them) then the GOP will really be screwed.



Anyways, about this election, I'd say the states still up in the air are: Colorado, Virginia, Florida, and North Carolina.

Colorado and Virginia are leaning towards Obama. North Carolina is leaning towards Romney. Florida truly seems split, but it probably favors Romney.

BUT... we have to remember that Obama can lose ALL 4 of those swing states and still win the election.

Romney has to pull out a surprise in the Midwest region, or he's screwed. Romney opposed the auto bailout, and he's made gaffes and slips all through this election that has really alienated him from the white working class folks of the Midwest. The GOP being humiliated for its "war on women," and Romney isolating the Hispanics in the primaries, didn't help either.

 

to borrow from thomas frank, what IS the matter with indiana? why are they more determined to vote against their own interests than the other great lakes states?

 

I blame NASCAR.

 

It was actually really surprising that they even went with Obama last time, nobody really expected it. The demographics that usually go for Democrats are just missing from Indiana. I think they were just really sick of Bush and the GOP last time, and I think they elected Obama to be the post-partisan champion. Just my thoughts, anyways.

 

maybe they're actually further left than the other great lakes states? they're just an entire state of anarchist accelerationists, determined to give capitalism enough rope to hang itself with

 

I've just seen a new pejorative for Obama: MAObama. It takes some creativity to make a new one this far into his presidency, so well done to its creator.

I'm confident that Chairman Obama will win on Tuesday.

 

that's not new, freep's been using for years

here's something REALLY clever (or at least hilarious)

 

I wouldn't be too concerned.

PA is fairly static and has a built in Democratic vote. It is one of the few states that where you can poll in July and never poll there again for the rest of the election cycle.

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/02/r-i-p-mitt-romney.html]RIP[/url] Mitt Romney

At least his campaign. It's amusing that The Daily Beast of all places is declaring him politically dead.

 

That problem is that article is from Robert Shrum............

 

Shrum has been highly successful at the congressional level, and also led Gore's campaign in 2000. He may not have helped a candidate to the presidency, but his candidate won the popular vote in 2000. Rove wasted a ton of money in 2000 trying to fake out the media and the Gore campaign, and Shrum didn't take the bait. If Gore had become president, that error by Rove may have kept him from doing much work for awhile.

Matthew Dowd today: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/11/04/how_you_know_youre_going_to_lose.html

I agree with him.

 

My area is flush with Republican signs on public property (like the sides of highway on-ramps) and Obama signs on private lawns (which outnumber the other signs by a large margin).

Clinton here in Pennsylvania tomorrow, including Philly, Scranton, Pittsburg, and Blue Bell, a Philadelphia suburb 10 minutes from my hometown.

I'm debating whether or not to go see him. Agree that he is a potentially tremendous help in the state, certainly much more so than Obama taking PA for granted, for example.

Almost there (think the Death Star torpedo run).

Peace,

V-03

 

I saw a billboard today, for a gun show, that said Get Your Protection Before The Election. Sigh.

 

Pittsburgh. H!

 

I meant to add in something else about Bob Shrum, which is that he ran Ted Kennedy's campaign against Mitt Romney in 1994. It's his blueprint that the Obama campaign used this past summer. The jury is out on this year, but not on 1994. Shrum's firm helped Kennedy defeat Romney that time around, and all these years later, Romney didn't fare any better than he did in 1994 when it came to answering questions about Bain Capital.