Obama leads in an important poll by wide a margin, in a frightening new development for Romney.
The polls right now show solid, if not overwhelming, leads for Obama in NV, OH, IA, and WI. NH looks like it has a close Obama lead. VA and CO look like tossups, with FL showing a close lead for Romney.
And as of late, the trends towards Romney that those states were showing have halted or even reversed themselves (based on poll averages).
I don’t think WI is really in play. If Obama wins OH, he has 265 EVs- which means he just needs one more state (besides NH) to get to 270, between IA, NV, VA, FL, and CO. Romney’s behind in two of those (IA and NV), two are tossups (CO and VA), and FL leans slightly towards Romney. Also, IA and OH have already started early voting- with HUGE leads (based on polling) among early voters for Obama.
Romney really does have a tough task- and I don’t think it’s going to happen.
Care to give us cites for all those polls? Because that’s not what I (and many others) are seeing.
I base it on a few sources (which use a lot of overlapping data)- Nate Silver’s blog(you can see the state polls on the right side of the page), the Princeton Election Consortium, and aggregates of polls from Real Clear Politics(OH here, VA here, WI here, CO here, NV here, and IA here). Obviously my analysis is my own opinion, but that’s what I base it on.
When did he say that?
I personally think it’s a more reasonable position, one I wish he would take, but my recollection is that he never backed off of 20% across the board, and the loophole offsets will undoubtedly cover this.
He said he wouldn’t reduce their share of the tax burden. He has consistently said everybody gets a cut, I believe.
It’s this kind of blind optimism that Romney’s counting on.
In both debates, on his campaign website, and in about 900 stump speeches.
Where is he asserting that the tax cut may have to be reduced, if the loopholes don’t add up? That’s a reasonable position in my book. But on point, Richard Parker was offering this up as some kind of big shift in position. I would not categorize it that way, but more fundamentally, I didn’t hear him say this in either debate. Crowley even teed it up for him in fact, and he refused to bite. I don’t detect any change in position, whether anyone would categorize it as minor or not if it did occur. It’s still 20% across the board, the loophole reductions will undoubtedly offset this, period.
The loophole reductions are mathematically incapable of making up for a 20% across the board tax cut.
I’m not contesting that.
Getting back to the thread topic, Obama is back over 70% on Nate Silver’s blog.
Crossing my fingers, and I hope you’re right.
Bubba and the Boss were in town stumping for Obama yesterday: Bill Clinton talks, Bruce Springsteen rocks at Parma rally for President Barack Obama (gallery and video) - cleveland.com
Even with the most generous assumptions, Romney’s tax plan doesn’t add up. I don’t mean that metaphorically, I mean that arithmetically. There just aren’t enough deductions to cut.
If he’s committed to 20% cuts across the board, that will mean an increase in the deficit, which will require cuts to programs (likely social security). If his primary interest is lowering taxes on the wealthy, and he isn’t actually committed to across the board cuts, then the middle class will have to get a tax hike to make it all balance.
So…why would the loophole reductions “undoubtedly” offset the cuts?
Some good zingers at the Al Smith Dinner last night:
Indeed. I thought Romney’s material was funnier, given that it was edgier, if a bit over the top of the general spirit of this annual dinner. OTOH, I thought Obama’s delivery and timing was best.
Sorry, I was echoing Romney there. That was intended to be a summary of his position, which I believe has not changed. I was questioning Richard Parker’s assertion that he detected some kind of material shift in Romney’s proposal. Whatever merit anyone sees (or doesn’t see) in Romney’s position, I don’t believe it has changed.
As I said, the “shift” Richard Parker described would be welcome from my perspective, and I believe would be the actual outcome in reality–Romney will limit the rate cut to be “deficit neutral.” But that’s not what he’s saying, and I’m not seeing any change.
From TPM, a summary of national polls in the last 24 hours tells its own story.
An interesting split between 538 and Intrade. A couple of days back they were nearly level at around 66. Right now Intrade is at 62% and 538 is at 70%. Will be interesting to watch how they move.
I think Obama has clearly had a good couple of days with both state and national polls moving in his direction. Intrade seems to be putting an irrationally large weight on the Gallup tracking poll.
Remember that Intrade is not a poll- it’s tracking the perceptions of bettors. I don’t think that Gallup poll has moved Intrade much- I think Intrade has had Obama in the low 60s for more than a week now.
So I think it can safely be said that it is indeed too early to say Romney has lost.
Well of course I know what Intrade is and it was at 65-66 a couple of days back. It has definitely moved in the opposite direction to 538.