Thursday Open Thread [9.27.12]

Filed in National by on September 27, 2012

Jonathan Chait:

“One of the dogs that hasn’t barked in this campaign is the massive financial advantage Mitt Romney was expected to enjoy on account of nearly unlimited funds available to him from conservative Superpacs. Yet, even including the efforts of outside groups, Obama has been out-advertising Romney in the key swing states…[.] The full story of how the financial tsunami failed to strike has yet to be untangled, but bits and pieces have dribbled out over recent days.”

Meanwhile, the ad that Mitt Romney is out with right now is in response to his revealing comments about the 47%. After watching the ad, Garance Franke-Ruta raised an excellent observation.

It’s not the most polished video in the world. But you can see the thinking behind it. The candidate will directly address the voters, making a spare, authentic, heart-to-heart appeal that he cares about how “too many Americans” are suffering.

And then he says it. “President Obama and I both care about poor and middle-class families. The difference is my policies will make things better for them.”

Them.

Mitt Romney keeps talking about the people whose votes he needs as “them.”

In the 47 percent video, it was “those people.”

“I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives,” Romney said.

But presidential elections are always about the grand national us. They are about we, the people. And when it come to a candidate, they are about me and you.

It is like Mitt Romney cannot get it through his thick skull that he needs the votes of those he despises (i.e. the poor) to win. He absolutely hates the working class, for he is so much richer and superior. All he had to do was say: “The difference is my policies will make things better for you.” But instead of you he said them.

Unbelievable. Worst candidate in history.

Nate Silver:

If the election were held today, however, it could look pretty ugly for Mr. Romney. The “now-cast” has Mr. Obama favored in all the states he won in 2008 except for Indiana, where he is several points behind, and North Carolina, which it shows as an almost exact tie. It would project Mr. Obama to win 337 electoral votes, slightly fewer than the 365 that he won in 2008. […]

In 14 of the 50 states, the “now-cast” would bet on Mr. Obama [receiving] a larger margin [of the vote] than he did in 2008. They are an eclectic mix and include the following:

Two states, Arizona and Alaska, that were home to the Republican presidential and vice-presidential candidates in 2008.

Three states in New England: Vermont, Maine and Rhode Island. There is an interesting split this year among the six New England states, with Mr. Obama running very well in these three, which are poorer, but not as well in Connecticut, New Hampshire and Massachusetts, where voters are better off.

Several states in the upland South, like Kentucky and Tennessee, where polls have sometimes shown Mr. Obama running ahead of his 2008 numbers. This is a region of the country where a higher-than-average number of voters said in exit polls that the race of the candidates played a role in their voting decision. It is possible that some of these racial effects have abated as Mr. Obama has become more of a familiar presence. It is also possible that this is a region of the country where polls still exaggerate the standing of African-American candidates. (This phenomenon, termed the Bradley Effect, no longer seems to hold in most parts of the country.)

New York, where Mr. Obama’s numbers have been quite strong in the polls, and which has gone from a state where Republicans could sometimes compete into one that seems completely lost for them.

Finally, two swing states: Florida and Ohio.

About the Author ()

Comments (39)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. puck says:

    “If the election were held today, however, it could look pretty ugly for Mr. Romney. ”

    I’m hoping it looks uglier in November. And for Repubs in Congress too.

  2. pandora says:

    I’m beginning to think we’ve moved beyond the fact that Romney stinks (Which he does) and heading toward a referendum on Republicanism.

  3. heragain says:

    So, this morning I’m arguing with someone who is running for Congress who wants “All Executive Orders repealed.”

    Um, what?

    Shall we re-segregate the armed forces? Redesign the US flag? Rename the Kennedy Space center? Restore our reliance on political assassination?

    If these people actually followed through on their plans to return us to the Articles of Confederation, who would meanwhile be responding to current conditions?

  4. cassandra_m says:

    Chait’s points about the financial advantage Rmoney was supposed to have are good ones. The fact that you can’t impose message discipline on the work that the PACs do seems to be a key thing to watch, in conjunction with the fact that some of these ads have been subject to some high-profile fact-checking which seems to redound to damaging Rmoney’s credibility.

    I’m still waiting for the onslaught of the BS and waiting to see if any of these PACs have been able to help the Rs in ground game. My guess on the latter is probably very little.

    The NYTimes is tracking Presidential election spending here.

  5. Jason330 says:

    Cassandra, I’ve read that the GOP favoring super pacs are looking for a greater “bang for the buck” by making direct (and untraceable) payments to GOP friendly Churches and associations to underwrite and pump up election day GOTV efforts. This effort includes paying people to vote.

    It it a model that worked in the Wisconsin recall election.

  6. Jason330 says:

    Pandora, If you are right this will be the third national referendum on Republicanism in four years. We won the first one by a wide margin when Obama won. We took the mid-terms off (following the lead of the President many would say) and lost. And now we have the question before us once again.

  7. Rusty Dils says:

    I don’t think Obama is as confident about the election as you guys are. Seems he is digging deeper into his Chicago Politics Bags of unethical political tricks.

    Today, he is paying $11.00 per hour to minorities to go protest on his behalf in Ohio.

    He is also offering minorities a free phone if they vote for him.

    Can’t imagine what this guy is going to try next to hold onto power. Fortunately there are more honest people like Mitt Romney in the country than there are dishonest people like Barrack Obama.

    So no matter how deep he digs into his Chicago unethical political bag, it ain’t going to work

  8. heragain says:

    Even my subscription to the tinfoil mailing lists doesn’t get me the goodies Rusty can always find. Like this free cell phone business. The campaign offered me a refrigerator magnet once, but I haven’t been able to score a phone. Do you have a link to sign up?

    Of course, it’s a good thing we have Honest Mitt as an option. Because from his student deferments to his Cayman Islands banks, Mitt has spent a lifetime redefining honesty in a way that ordinary people can only dream of.

  9. socialistic ben says:

    “Today, he is paying $11.00 per hour to minorities to go protest on his behalf in Ohio.”

    liar.

  10. cassandra_m says:

    The dishonest person here is RD — who is quick to spin up any damn thing he pleases to try to justify the unjustifiable.

  11. Jonathan Starkey ‏@jwstarkey

    Down in Sussex, where Christine O’Donnell will speak at a fundraiser for state Senate @ Georgetown, Delaware http://instagr.am/p/QGIccUM5Yg/

  12. jason330 says:

    I wonder if O’Donnell will say anything crazy?

    (JUST KIDDING)

  13. Delaware Dem says:

    I wonder if something crazy will happen at that fundraiser.

  14. jason330 says:

    https://twitter.com/jwstarkey

    I never thought I’d be following Starkey’s tweets.

  15. Delaware Dem says:

    I wonder why Starkey’s there. Perhaps he is expecting a story to break there tonight.

  16. SussexWatcher says:

    Because he wants to be the next Ginger Gibson and get the hell out of Delaware? Just thinking out loud.

    Seriously: They expect her to make news somehow. It’s not unheard of for reporters to attend events where things happen and then write about them. That’s what journalists do.

  17. puck says:

    Starkey tweet:

    Jonathan Starkey ‏@jwstarkey
    Sen. Harris McDowell headlines electric car rally in Dover. Yes, you read that right. http://delonline.us/NTnz9Z #netDE

    Wasn’t that LiberalGeek’s idea?

  18. Roland D. Lebay says:

    @heragain–

    The federal government began giving free cell phones to low income people prior to Obama taking office. The program is well advertised and has nothing at all to do w/ President Obama, but the free phones are almost universally referred to as “Obama phones”.

    More info at the link below:

    Obama Phone

  19. Roland D. Lebay says:

    BTW, the phones are crappy & there is no requirement to vote for anyone. If you qualify for the program, you get a crappy phone.

  20. Anon says:

    Heard a storm is brewing in Sussex County politics. Sounds like we might hear something tonight.

  21. Jason330 says:

    Inviting O’Donnell to speak is like breaking a mirror while passing under a ladder in front of a black cat.

  22. Delaware Dem says:

    Yes, Anon. We know about it. When and if it happens, we will post on it. Nothing until then.

  23. Anon says:

    Thank you, and I understand completely. I was mainly just fishing to see if anyone else was hearing the same things I am.

    If and when it happens it will lead me to another question that I would like to hear someones opinion on. I’ll wait until the approriate time.

  24. Delaware Dem says:

    Once it happens, we will have a post up on it with many questions as to what will happen now that said event has occurred. Someone today told me that it will be one of the biggest stories in Delaware political history. I don’t know about that, but it will be big.

  25. SussexWatcher says:

    I’ve been out of it for a few days. Is the storm on the R or D side?

  26. Delaware Dem says:

    If I give any more information out this will turn into a guessing game and I don’t think that is wise, and given that the subject matter is pretty delicate and serious, I think it more prudent to wait.

  27. SussexWatcher says:

    Oh. So that thing, then. Gotcha.

  28. SussexAnon says:

    Scratch that. We’ll just wait n see what happens.

  29. SussexWatcher says:

    Eventually, it would have to.

  30. Rusty Dils says:

    Latest from our “Corrupter and Chief”

    This week, we learned that the Obama campaign has been targeting coal supporters at rallies. In Virginia, Obama staffers confiscated pro-coal signs and hats worn by folks at a Joe Biden rally. And at a rally for Barack Obama in Ohio, coal supporters were banned from the event altogether. Banned? He had people banned because they support coal? Yes. He. Did.

  31. Geezer says:

    Rusty: Perhaps you forget, but Bush wouldn’t allow in anyone who had so much as an anti-Bush bumper sticker on the car. Grow. Up.

  32. SussexWatcher says:

    The waiting is killing me. I hope it’s not true, but if it is …

  33. Delaware Dem says:

    I know. I heard nothing today, and neither did our sources.

  34. SussexWatcher says:

    Does the press know?

  35. Delaware Dem says:

    Several news organizations know.

  36. It’s why I didn’t post my Week in Review today.

    Uh, not that anyone noticed…

  37. All I heard about the storm-‘a-comin’ was that its related to old news on Vance Phillips — just add a few more under-aged females to the one already out there.

  38. Delaware Dem says:

    Actually no. Nothing to do with Vance Phillips.