Every time I look at the news lately it seems like Romney is screwing up again in some major way. He’s either getting his facts wrong, using shoddy math, relying on magic, saying inappropriate things, writing people off, making hypocritical statements, rewriting history, revealing an ignorance of economic theory, etc.
And yet, according to Intrade, he’s still got a 30% shot at the Presidency. Nate Silver currently predicts a 25% chance for Romney to win and 48% of the popular vote.
I mean, 25-30% is not crazy-low, but that’s not nothing by a long shot. Same goes for the popular vote – nearly half.
It really makes me wonder what it takes to actually outright lose a Presidency when you can pretty much botch everything up and still come out with a decent shot. How do we, as a society, teach people to acknowledge the merits of evidence? How can people look at all these obvious mistakes and bend over backwards/undergo countless mental gymnastics to justify them?
Many people are misinformed by right-wing news sources. They think Obamacare is a “government takeover” of healthcare and that you’ll have to stand in line at the DMV to see a doctor.
Low information voters only skim the headlines, not read the articles. And it’s easier to lie in headlines. So you get guys like Clint Eastwood, who have incoherent views based on snippits they hear about. Eastwood has a first rate mind, but he just doesn’t do the work to be informed on the issues. I think a lot of people are like that.
So you get otherwise good, intelligent people, voting to stop the imagined evils of the Obama administration.
Half the people who vote for Romney would vote for anybody not-Obama. Half of the other half will vote for any Republican. Half of the other half are insane or stupid. Then throw in Mormons, the haves, and the have mores. That gives you almost as many people who are going to vote for Obama.
Clint Eastwood supports gay marraige and the right to abortions. He is about as fiscally conservative as Obama and yet he thinks Obama is an extreme lefty liberal.
Even in blowout elections, like Reagan-Mondale in 1984, the loser still gets 40% or more of the vote. There’s still a significant portion that will pretty much always vote R or D.
Even with the recent gaffes, I maintain that McCain’s campaign in 2008 was the bigger disaster. Between Sarah Palin and the “suspending the campaign to rush back to DC to fix the economy” thing, that’s a major league disaster of a campaign.
Romney has some big hurdles to clear, and time is starting to run out, but he is not out of this race yet. The main reason is that the economy still sucks and people are not wrong to question whether the government is serving them as well as it can.
Nate Silver’s prediction is a forecast that includes the possibility of some catastrophic change to the race between now and election day – a war starts, a(nother) horrible financial debacle, Obama is caught with a dead girl or a live boy. If you look at his Nowcast, his prediction for what would happen if the election were held today, he gives Romney only a 5.6% chance of winning.
The base is not likely to change their positions, so Romney will get a sizeable amount of the vote. But barring a game-changing event, he is not going to win the election.
Romney’s campaign hasn’t been that bad. He’s not a great candidate, but he’s not uniquely terrible either. And if you agree with his ideology, you’d be silly to abandon him because of his relatively minor screw-ups.
A few voters might’ve abandoned Romney because of his various screw-ups, but by and large he’s loosing because a thin majority of the country doesn’t want to buy what he’s selling.
I’d love to know what you consider a bad campaign, then. The Mid East mess is foreign policy, so no one cares, but being caught saying he has written off 47% is bad. Letting Clint waste valuable time is bad. Losing control of the discussion with one gaffe after another (and wasting time) is bad. Not releasing the tax returns, and keeping the “he’s not like us” perception out there, is bad (unless there is a dead girl or live boy hidden in them.) Even picking Ryan as Veep is bad. (Not as bad as Palin, but still bad.) Having conservative columnists writing in the WSJ that he needs an intervention is way bad.
Given the economy, a halfway decent candidate with a halfway decent campaign should be way ahead.
The rest of the Republicans melted down during the primaries. Mitt waited until now.
Pretty much this.
Not all voters consider who their voting for like it’s a personal popularity contest. Policy and thus party matters. Mitt Romney regardless of who he is personally still represents idea’s that you can’t get in a Democratic candidate. If you believe in those ideas of the Republican party you don’t have a choice.
Same goes for opposition. If you are against policies of the Democratic party, you don’t have many options other than Romney. If you think a Democratic administration would be damaging to the country you have no other options then to support Romney.
It’s why wedge issues can be effective for swinging elections.
If Obama was screwing up as badly as Romney is now, I’d probably still be voting for him because I oppose multiple planks of the Republican party.
Each side thinks the other side’s gaffes and screw-ups are monumental and will totally change the outcome of the election. In reality, most people will vote for the party they prefer, even if they have to hold their noses to do it. And for the most part, they won’t even feel they have to hold their noses. They’ll feel that the other side has grossly exaggerated the importance of what they consider to be minor issues. So even though as a staunch Democrat and supporter of Obama, I’m cackling with glee and contempt over the Romney fundraiser video, I don’t expect to see sweeping changes in the outcome. I do hope it will sway just enough of the undecideds to make a difference, but I don’t expect to see any solid red states turn blue.
Ryan was a pretty good choice. You just haven’t heard anything about him lately because the USUAL state of affairs is everyone ignores the VP, and Romney’s gaffes are the focus of his campaign.
2008, when people paid attention to the train wreck that was Sarah Palin, was an anomaly.
Honestly, I think this is the one part of the campaign that unremarkable. Palin was a disaster. Quayle couldn’t spell potato. Gore was a cardboard cutout. Biden is a gaffe machine. Ryan is full of bad policy ideas, but he’s not intended to be in charge, and rarely does anyone actually care about the Veep’s specific politics. His job is to support the President, not enact his own policy.
Ryan was a pretty terrible choice. It was the first time we’ve ever seen a presidential candidate not gain in the polls after their VP announcement. Polls following Romney’s pick remained flat and in some cases even saw losses.
Most people vote for very dumb reasons on both sides (Most don’t vote for dumb reasons as well). You can be happy that the clearly inferior candidate is losing, but I wouldn’t try to find a rationale that assumes anything other than mass irrationality and manipulation.
Jackie Robinson was born in Kenya? Ignorance fought, thank you sir! Yes that is a joke, but a Romney voter would be unlikely to notice.
Romney has 100% of the “Anybody but Obama!” vote, and 0% of the “Let another Republican into the oval office…are you out of your everlovin’ mind?” vote. And that isn’t going to change excepting a dead woman or a live boy…and maybe not then. The remaining voters are perhaps 10%. That means to shift the polls by 1% you have to cause a 10% shift in those voters that are sway-able, and that is a huge shift, and only shifts the aggregate number 1%, which is near, or even below the margin of error for most of those polls.
As entrenched as most of the electorate is in this election, it takes a lot to make a small shift in the numbers, so those small shifts should not be discounted.