Looking at how the poor debate performance seemed to disproportionately hurt Obama, compared with the numerous negatives for Romney, I suspect good jobs numbers wouldn’t bounce the Pres up much.
Bad numbers might hurt him significantly.
Well, kaylasdad99 (and the rest of us) can only define a Republican in terms of what they are and stand for right now. Given their current state, I’m extremely sympathetic to his POV.
There is definitely a difference, but it’s not a huge difference. There is no conceivable model that has one candidate winning the popular vote by a decent margin but losing the electoral college. And the current polling reflects that. Romney is down by less than an average of one in Ohio and Virginia. And he’s within the margin of error in three states he wasn’t doing well in just two weeks ago(PA, MI, and WI).
Assuming today’s Republican Party will be tomorrow’s is silly, though.
I’m sure you have more imagination than that. The GOP of 2012 is not the GOP of 1860, 1904, 1952 or 1976. It has changed before, and it will again.
Believe me, I would applaud a change for the better in Republican ideology with a standing ovation. I just don’t think they’ve hit bottom yet, and that they CAN easily get worse, which means that the last thing I want is any Republican to be nominating Supreme Court justices in the foreseeable future. Until we pass Peak Wingnut, my ONLY political goal is keeping Republicans out of the White House and, hopefully, the Senate.
Yes, it will, if the GOP maintains anything like its present conservative politics. Conservatism as such has no value for America, and needs to be permanently marginalized. It’s often said that the two parties are needed to curb each other’s excesses, but that’s not at all true – it would be true, if our two-party system were the Democrats and the Socialists.
“Peak Wingnut is a liberal myth!”
No, it isn’t. I’ve climbed it!
The latest swing state polls all show Romney within the margin of error. Down 1 in Ohio, 2 in Wisconsin, tied in New Hampshire, down 1 in Nevada. And down only 5 in Pennsylvania. That’s three polls now that confirm Romney can win Pennsylvania.
Which polls? Got a link?
Oh, HELL no…if I have to drive people to the damn polls.
They do not confirm that. They confirm that he is most likely down by a few points in PA even at his high water mark.
Margin of error does not mean the poll result is meaningless within the bounds of the error. It means the most likely result is exactly the one given, but that we can say that 95% of the time random error did not move the poll more than the error bars. When you aggregate multiple polls that all show Obama winning, you further increase the confidence that the truth being sampled lies where the average of those polls lies.
I understand, but in practice being within the margin of error means a pretty decent chance of the one trailing coming out ahead when the actual votes are cast. And in the case of some of these swing states, not all the polls show Obama leading. Romney leads in 2 of the last 5 Ohio polls and 2 of the last 4 Virginia polls. That’s a tossup.
Here are the most recent polls:
What is depressing is not the polls themselves but what they tell me about the electorate. That they could care less that they were lied to over and over by Romney.
That statement is only true for idiosyncratic definitions of “decent chance.” Ignoring non-statistical error, a candidate losing by 2 points in the aggregate of polls has less than a 20% chance of victory. Whether those odds go up when you factor in potential systematic polling errors depends on what error you think might be out there, but the fact is that the aggregate of the polls almost always call the race correctly.
Obama told them lies and he’s actually been governing while lying. Heck, Obama’s whole persona was a carefully choreographed lie.
Yes, that’s been the typical Romney campaign response. He proposes a series of impossible and irresponsible policies, then lies about them, and when called on it says Obama is a liar. There’s an ironclad defense if ever I heard one.
The problem with that analysis is that no one in their right mind would bet that there’s a 50% or better chance that Romney will win the popular vote and lose the electoral college. The swing state polls and the national polls will converge and are converging as we speak.
Romney isn’t running claiming to be a different kind of politician. Obama did. Romney is running as a typical politician making typical campaign promises. The only people who are bothered by that are those who still think Obama is special. And sure, you’ll object to that, but if you really didn’t believe that, you wouldn’t hold Romney to a different standard.