GOP Activists to Romney: Why Aren't You Winning?

[Omg a Black Conservative]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

He cracked the code

As for the statement that NC was a perfect storm in 2008, I don't agree with that. NC has supposedly had the same thing VA had. Voter registration drives combined with emigration by professionals/liberals and moderates pushed away by the GOP. Even in 2012 Romney may only win by 3%, far less than the 12% Bush won in 2004.

If trends continue NC should be a swing state again in 2016.

By that thought Connecticut may very well be a swing state by 2016, too.

(At least, if you extrapolate based on Nate Silver's current topic.)

[Voyager]

Take a look at this one. It appears that some Tea Party Republicans, one who prided themselves on not compromising, are now campaigning on being able to work with the Dems.

Partisan obstreperousness, the force that propelled Congressional Republicans to widespread victory in 2010, is suddenly for many of them as out of style as monocles. In campaign advertisements, some lawmakers who once dug in against Democrats now promote the wonders of bipartisanship. And legislatively, Republicans in tough races are seeking to soften their edges by moderating their votes, tossing their teacups and otherwise projecting a conciliatory image to voters.

I'm sensing flop sweat. You also don't get lots of people on your side telling you to do things differently, and reports of infighting at hq, if you are winning.
Don't expect to see anyone in the media, right or left, saying Romney is a goner. But I can't wait for the Newsweek article on this election - then we will find out what is really going on there.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Chefguy

I think Mr. Fischer is incorrect. Perhaps if they lose this one, the Republican Party will make a concerted effort to return to its conservative roots and forsake the radical element that has taken over. I have no problem with fiscal conservatism when it's tempered with some common sense, but people like Ryan take things too far.

Not likely. Remember, they wound up nominating a candidate who was relatively moderate in the last two elections. If you think the radicals are going to admit that one of their candidates would have been beaten worse you are dreaming. Romney started closer to true conservative roots than the rest of them, and got more radical by selling out for the nomination. They will eventually figure out that the radicals need to get behind one candidate, and that guy will get the nomination. When they lost to the level of Goldwater, maybe then they will get it.

The demographics are staring them in the face - and they still ignore them still.

[Lamar Mundane]

Originally Posted by Omg a Black Conservative

The Marist polls of Ohio, Virginia and Florida.

ETA> The weird thing is that Nate Silver's analysis of Rasmussen is the only one I've seen which ranks it low. Other rankings tend to show it towards the top.

Rasmussen was accurate in the mid-oughts, but has developed a significant Republican bias more recently.

Moreover, Rasmussen’s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen’s polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases — that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued.

If one focused solely on the final poll issued by Rasmussen Reports or Pulse Opinion Research in each state — rather than including all polls within the three-week interval — it would not have made much difference. Their average error would be 5.7 points rather than 5.8, and their average bias 3.8 points rather than 3.9.

Nor did it make much difference whether the polls were branded as Rasmussen Reports surveys, or instead, were commissioned for Fox News by its subsidiary Pulse Opinion Research. (Both sets of surveys used an essentially identical methodology.) Polls branded as Rasmussen Reports missed by an average of 5.9 points and had a 3.9 point bias. The polls it commissioned on behalf of Fox News had a 5.1 point error, and a 3.6 point bias.

I don't know how you can call the Marist polls biased when the election hasn't occurred yet, but I agree that analysis shows Marist to be one of the less accurate polls, but in a decidedly Republican direction.

Other polling firms that joined Rasmussen toward the bottom of the chart were Marist College, whose polls also had a notable Republican bias, and CNN/Opinion Research, whose polls missed by almost 5 points on average. Their scores are less statistically meaningful than that for Rasmussen Reports, however, because they had only released surveys in 14 and 17 races, respectively, as compared to Rasmussen’s 105 polls.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by etv78

Coolidge was born in Vermont.

Oops - quite right.

[YogSosoth]

Originally Posted by Omg a Black Conservative

You know, I've always wondered why people discount Rasmussen polls but accept other ones that Nate Silver ranks even lower than Rasmussen (at least according to the demi-god Nate Silver)?

You are going to be so cute after the election. That is, if you show your face around here

[Zakalwe]

Originally Posted by Omg a Black Conservative

The Marist polls of Ohio, Virginia and Florida.

ETA> The weird thing is that Nate Silver's analysis of Rasmussen is the only one I've seen which ranks it low. Other rankings tend to show it towards the top.

? While he doesn't normally rank Marist that low, Silver talks at length that he thinks they're running high for Obama right now and actually *lowered* Obama's chances based on the Marist polls (among others).

[Cheesesteak]

Originally Posted by JohnT

I truly hope they're as puzzled as Democrats who couldn't understand why Bush won in '04.

They're going to lose for the same reason.

"I'm not [incumbent]" only gets you so far when the country isn't actually falling apart.

As bad as things are now, the economy IS better than it was when Obama took office. Recovery is slower than you'd want it to be, but 4 years ago we were talking about Great Depression II, not a typical bump in the road.

As crappy as the Iraq War was in 2004, the economy wasn't terrible, people had jobs, and the war was semi-sanitized.

You want to beat the incumbent, you have to convince people to vote for you because you're awesome, or convince them the country is failing right now. Romney and Kerry did neither.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Cheesesteak

They're going to lose for the same reason.

"I'm not [incumbent]" only gets you so far when the country isn't actually falling apart.

It also probably doesn't help that the Republicans have been making such a spectacle of being obstructionist. That's going to deflect some of the blame that Obama would have otherwise have gotten for the economy and other problems.

[ElvisL1ves]

Electoral-vote explains the reasons for the Rasmussen sampling bias that they refuse to adjust for.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

It also probably doesn't help that the Republicans have been making such a spectacle of being obstructionist. That's going to deflect some of the blame that Obama would have otherwise have gotten for the economy and other problems.

More simply, most people blame Bush more than Obama for it anyway. And Romney is promoting the return of Bush policies.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

Romney has made no attempt whatsoever to explain what he'd do if elected. I think he truly believes that repeating "My name is not Barack Obama" would magically give him the keys to the Oval Office. Now the team of Vulture and Voucher is like a sailboat in a dead calm. This has been the worst run campaign that I can recall, and I can recall them going back to 1964. Trying to milk the Libyan dead before the bodies were even identified was the final coffin nail.

He might have even gotten away with that, if he hadn't done it in person, smirking his way through the attempt to exploit the event and leaving an indelible impression on the reporters that there was something just not right about him.

[Southern Yankee]

The blaming begins. (Link to NY Daily News website.)

[JohnT]

That looks to be highlights of a much larger politico.com piece that appeared yesterday:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81280.html

I didn't watch the Eastwood speech, but I'm flabbergasted to learn that it was largely extemporized.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by aldiboronti

Yeah, Romney is doing terribly. Six points ahead in North Carolina, the state in which Democrats just held their convention. Why, he may as well quit now.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that Romney does get NC (15 EV). Let's also spot him VA (13), OH (18), WI (10), IA (6), CO (9), and NV (6). He still loses if he does not get FL as well as all of the above.

[Lantern]

I thought of starting a thread on that Politico piece. It's a definite sign that the Romney campaign is in the first throes of a death spiral. You usually get this kind of story after a loss but the election is still seven weeks away. The Hillary, McCain and Romney campaigns all look rather similar don't they ? Growing chaos and dissension as they are methodically picked apart by the Obama team.

[2ManyTacos]

Ladies and gentlemen, could this be the ace in the hole?

So now, apparently, according to Mittens himself, Obama voters are "dependent on government" and "believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing."

This kind of bullshit resonates with the GOP base, but among the rest of the public it's bound to come off as ridiculous nonsense. If anything, this video further hurts Romney's chances of trying to come off as the everyman, and the Obama team should jump on this to rile up the Dem base and turn over the independents to their side.

[CJJ*]

Originally Posted by Lantern

I thought of starting a thread on that Politico piece. It's a definite sign that the Romney campaign is in the first throes of a death spiral. You usually get this kind of story after a loss but the election is still seven weeks away. The Hillary, McCain and Romney campaigns all look rather similar don't they ? Growing chaos and dissension as they are methodically picked apart by the Obama team.

I agree. Folks need to remember that while a presidential campaign is primarily about electing a candidate, it's also a career stepping stone for the campaign staffers. Dishing to the press now is a sign that some of those staffers want to soften their own landing when Romney going bust.