Monday Open Thread [11.5.12]

Filed in Open Thread by on November 5, 2012

How will the undecided break? The Romney campaign has always argued that all of the undecided vote will vote for him, and that is why he will win. Unfortunately, history and facts paint a much different reality, a reality that is unkind to the Mittens. From First Read:

“The [latest NBC/Wall Street Journal Marist] survey found that 9% of the likely voters are up for grabs (meaning they’re undecided or just leaning to a candidate), and these folks have more positive feelings toward Obama than Romney. Obama’s job approval with them is 48% approve, 41% disapprove. What’s more, Obama’s fav/unfav with them is 46%/29%, vs. Romney’s upside down 22%-49%. Bottom line: Our pollsters see more of an opportunity for Obama among these voters and more of an uphill climb for Romney.”

“You know [Obama] proved [it in] the way he handled this terrible storm Sandy in the Northeast: getting off the campaign trail, putting aside politics, working with the Republican governor of New Jersey, the independent mayor of New York City, and the Democratic governors of New York and Connecticut. It was a stunning example of how ‘we’re all in this together’ is a way better philosophy than you’re on your own,” – Bill Clinton, campaigning in Concord, New Hampshire.

“If I hear anybody say it was because Romney wasn’t conservative enough I’m going to go nuts. We’re not losing 95% of African-Americans and two-thirds of Hispanics and voters under 30 because we’re not being hard-ass enough.” — Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), quoted by Politico, saying that demographics would be the only reason for a hypothetical Mitt Romney loss Tuesday.

Mark Halperin: “Don’t kill me for the obvious, but the near absence of racial diversity in the Romney crowds is teased out further by the contrast with the rainbow the President draws. It is more striking than I have ever experienced it in any presidential campaign I have covered.”

Nate Silver finds President Obama with an 88% chance to win the presidential election and that the barrage of swing state polls showing him leading Mitt Romney represents “powerful evidence against the idea that the race is a ‘tossup.’ A tossup race isn’t likely to produce 19 leads for one candidate and one for the other — any more than a fair coin is likely to come up heads 19 times and tails just once in 20 tosses. (The probability of a fair coin doing so is about 1 chance in 50,000.)”

“Instead, Mr. Romney will have to hope that the coin isn’t fair, and instead has been weighted to Mr. Obama’s advantage. In other words, he’ll have to hope that the polls have been biased in Mr. Obama’s favor… They could be biased. Based on the historical reliability of polls, we put the chance that they will be biased enough to elect Mr. Romney at 16%.”

Jon Ralston: “I know the Romney folks and some RNC operatives believe they can still win, despite trailing by nearly 50,000 votes in early voting. But they need everything to break right — President Obama hemorrhages Democrats and independents vote in huge numbers for Romney, two things I do not see happening. It would be very difficult for Obama to lose Nevada, especially because I think more than two-thirds of the vote is in, so whatever turnout advantage the GOP has on Tuesday won’t be enough. Obama, 50 percent; Romney, 46 percent; others and ‘none of the above,’ 4 percent.”

About the Author ()

Comments (9)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Brian Stephan says:

    I think the presidential race margin will be within 5% and will fall in favor of Obama. You can already tell the GOP is preparing for defeat by crafting narratives about how everything OTHER than their lame excuses for candidates is to blame for losing another election. It’s Sandy’s fault. It’s Christie’s fault. Obama’s photo-ops fault. Not because the Romney/Ryan/GOP message failed to make sense, be fleshed out or mathematically add up to draw enough independents in. It’s everyone else’s fault.

    The GOP, again, made (the same) two fatal flaws in this general election. 1. They stayed firmly entrenched in the regressive end of the spectrum. And 2: Ran someone like Mitt Romney, who can’t make up his mind and reverses course or abandons ship instead of backing himself up.

    It will be interesting to me to see what the GOP does for the next 4 years. Will they continue to populate Crazytown or begin to shift back to being sensible fiscal conservatives -AND- social moderates.

  2. skeptic says:

    No way are they going to shift back. I think the train to crazy town is already gassed up and ready to leave the station…first stop will be discussion of impeachment for the Benghazi affair!

  3. Dave says:

    My view as an indepedent.

    I got asked what my decision was today. I replied “Not Romney” If I had a good reason to not give Obama another four years, I would would vote that way in a minute. But Romney isn’t it. For me, the presidential choice boils down to (in order of priority) national security, foreign policy, effective executive leadership, and working with Congress. I have to give Obama good marks for the first two, an acceptable grade for the third, and probably a D for the last. So there it is. He needs remedial classes in the last one but generally, he is ok. Romney did not even mention Americans serving in Afghanistan during his convention speech. His comprehension of foreign policy is probably similar to Palin’s. He hasn’t given me a good reason to choose him. And by the way, presidents don’t create jobs, so voting based on that reason is nonsensical.

    Honestly, I would vote for Jon Hunstman in a minute, but he isn’t running. I’m not casting this as a question of the lesser of two evils, but like I said, Romney hasn’t shown me anything except that I have no clue what he stands for (and probably wouldn’t like it if I did have a clue).

    Just for the record,

    Obama (I haven’t marked the ballot yet, but that’s probably it)
    Carper (I like him, constituent service is exceptional)
    Carney (Don’t know him, but he seems ok)
    Markell (a political animal, but he’s pretty damn smart and effective)
    Denn (seems like an ok guy, but Sher seals the deal, lucky for him)
    Mobley (no real knowledge, but KWS sure generates a lot comments)
    Lopez (although I’m still sort of on the fence. Could flop for Staton)
    Mayor (she really does have the right stuff and she is successful)
    Brady (who? Witzke is a sheriff supporter, a deal killer)
    Deaver (answers my calls, right side of the sheriff issue, understands the county and is tireless)

  4. Dave says:

    “I think the train to crazy town is already gassed up and ready to leave the station”

    I agree. If Romney loses it means they will have earned the right to put forth a real whack in 2016. Which means any credible (D) is going to be almost a walk. It could be Clinton, but there is no evidence she wants it (yeah I know, Bill wants her to have it but that’s just because he can’t do it again). It’s bad form to speculate about 2016 when 2012 isn’t over, so I guess this topic will come up sometime after tomorrow.

  5. Bill Humphrey says:

    Check out these irreconcilable differences between Senator Cloutier and her positions:


  6. Dave says:

    Christie easily wins relection next year. Some will say that he was being a politician, looking out for his chances. More likely most will think he was being a governor doing his job.