Nate also has an adjustment for Romney’s bounce which under his model is fading now. So it’s the combination of a still strong Obama bounce and a fading Romney bounce which is producing the “bounce skepticism”. He had a chart on this a couple of weeks back.
Anyway we have had a huge number of state polls in the last few days and with a few exceptions it’s looking very good for Obama. It appears that Wisconsin is no longer on the table. Obama is doing well in big states like Virginia and Ohio and while his numbers are a bit softer in states like Colorado he is still in the lead. And the bad polls come from a small number of pollsters like Rasmussen and Gravis who have a Republican lean and don’t include cellphones.
Nate has a listof polls which include cellphones since the convention and they make terrifying reading for Romney. In Ohio, Virginia and Florida, Obama’s smallest lead is 4 points and his average lead is around 6 points. There is no question Romney would lose if the election was held today.
It’s not over yet. I agree that we’ve gone past the point where Romney can turn this election around - nothing he can do at this point is going to win him the election.
But it would still be possible for Obama to lose it. If Obama commits some major screw-up in October, it could cost him votes and bring Romney back in to electable range.
Tru dat, but the point is that unless we’re at a point on the graph where Obama’s net bounce is still increasing, a stable now-cast should result in an increasing Nov. 6 edge. Because when comparing an earlier date with a later date, with both dates after Obama’s net convention bounce has hit its peak, there’s less illusory edge to discount for at the later date.
Same with reversion to the mean, and the possibility that something unexpected will happen to shake things up. At any later date, there’s less reversion to the mean yet to happen, and diminished time and therefore diminished likelihood of an event that will upset Obama’s applecart.
That’s enough. He really needs to win both Florida and Ohio, and at least one of Virginia and Wisconsin, to have more than a run-the-table sort of chance. And lately he’s not looking so good in Florida, he’s suddenly getting killed in Virginia, Ohio continues to hold up well for Obama, and his fleeting chance in Wisconsin seems to have fled. Even if Romney pulls Florida out, the trio of Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin gets Obama to 278, unless Romney is able to put some states in play that currently aren’t, even if Romney runs the rest of the table of swing states.
Seriously…I considered starting a new thread on this topic, but I’ll dump the thought here instead. It seems to me that the Republicans could have capitalized on the financial meltdown, by nominating a quasi-populist, quasi-Libertarian. Somebody with “regular guy” roots, able to point at Wall Street and call for reform, and appeal to Americans resourcefulness and independence.
Instead, they nominated Mr Wall Street. Rich Uncle Pennybags, Daddy Warbucks, Scrooge McDuck.* (And an absolutely terrible campaigner, to boot).
*Note that FDR was a plutocrat too, but wasn’t a jerk about it.
I suspect that Romney “elevate myself by standing on Ambassador Stevens’ cooling corpse” and “47% of the little people are moochers” gaffes are extending Obama’s bounce (over and above the obvious damage to Romney himself). Normally, a bounce fades when voters, initially impressed by the presentation of Side A’s convention, stop to take a fresh look at Side B and possibly change their minds. In this case, Romney stepped in it right at the time when this phenomenon would normally kick in.
It’s as if the Republican candidate in 1936 ran on a platform of “FDR hasn’t ended the Depression yet! We need to dump him and get back to Hoover’s policies!”.
I suspect Romney would be crushed as well, if he wasn’t running against a Kenyan Muslim. Mitt is getting a lot of votes because his opponent isn’t, you know, one of us.
Concentrating on the economy instead of trying to push vouchercare, and not being so retrograde when it came to women and minorities, would have been the sensible thing to do. Unfortunately, they’ve expended so much effort pandering to idiots and getting fluffed by Fox News personalities that this is pretty much the best they can be if they still want their base to show up on election day.
Actually, they did this in 2008 - McCain was the “anti-Bush” Republican, and while he might not have met all your qualifications, he was likely the only name-brand Republican who had a chance in hell of winning in 2008.
Instead of doing the same in 2012, the Republicans nominate their version of John Kerry - a NE plutocrat who is easily fingered as being “out of touch.” Worse for the Repubs, their nominee hasn’t anywhere the political experience that Kerry had/has.
Romney has very few outs at this point Out (poker) - Wikipedia There are a dwindling number of likely scenarios that can carve him a path to the whitehouse. The Presidential debates are his last best chance. He has to swing for the fences and risk striking out because he can’t win with base hits anymore. He needs a Hail Mary. At this point more money and better messaging isn’t going to do it. He needs to get really really lucky.
I think just nominating Romney from 2002 would have made this an incredibly tight race. 2002 moderate Romney would still have gotten the “anyone but Obama” demographic, even if they complained loudly about RINOs and he could have attracted a fair number of independents and Scott Brown Democrats. Instead, Romney has concentrated on the demographic he already owned and did his best to alienate the one he was trying to attract.
Because of the size of his base demographic (and my innate pessimism), I’d be hesitant to say that the race is over. But it’s fair to say that Romney has made a terrible case for his candidacy.
The problem with a libertarian-ish nominee is that most people aren’t libertarians. Libertarians in particular have a very hard time believing that, but it’s true. Almost everybody can find something they agree with libertarian-type candidates about - spending, drug policy, whatever - but they don’t agree with the libertarian philosophy. It’s much too extreme and runs counter to the way the U.S. has worked for several generations. That’s a big deal.
Erm, I think a little bit of a reality-check is called for here: Kerry had served three terms in Ted Kennedy’s shadow as a senator from Massachusetts; Romney got himself elected governor of the same state and has run two national campaigns for president. You could argue Romey has less experience but it’s not that much of a difference.
The problem is, 2002 Romney would have been laughed out of the 2012 GOP primaries. Hell, 1984 Reagan would have had a tough time with this crowd.
The reason Romney’s played to the base is that every time he gives them the least reason to doubt him, they raise a ruckus. And he hasn’t come remotely close to being 2002 Romney; if he had done so over the summer, the convention would have turned on him, booted his sorry ass out, and found somebody new. If he did so now…well, for one thing, it’s just a wee tad late, and does anyone want to elect a candidate who found a whole new set of principles less than two months before Election Day?
And for another, the base really would rebel. If 2012 Romney turned into 2002 Romney a week or two after the GOP Convention, they’d probably call another convention, and force him to sign each page of the party platform in his own blood before letting him continue as nominee, assuming they did. Remember, these people feel they own the party, and they sorta do. They’ve spent 32 years helping Republicans win elections, and they don’t feel like they’ve gotten a decent payoff out of it yet. I’m not sure what they’d do if a candidate they’d already nominated after he kowtowed to them, changed his tune and told them he was turning into a Rockefeller Republican, or even a Howard Baker Republican. But it wouldn’t be pretty.
Well Gary Johnson has the “regular guy” schtick down, but…
Wall Street bankrolls the Republican Party… and the Democratic Party too! But the difference is that Dems will pass mild reformist measures such as Dodd Frank. That bill passed with the vote of 1 Republican Senator - Snowe of Maine who is retiring. Three Republicans out of 237 voted for it in the House. Pushing any sort of reformist agenda would be stymied by the reality of the Republican legislative obstructionism. So another strategy must be pursued.
