I suppose you’re free to infer whatever you want from the anonymous Romney advisor, but what he actually said was: “There was a Columbus Dispatch poll last week that had it 45-45. That’s a more accurate picture of the state of the play there than any of the spin. PPP has these polls that just put chum in the water for the media.” It’s pretty obvious that he’s specifically comparing the last two OH polls.
My response was to your post that said nothing about “a totality of numbers.” Specifically, you said:
I provided you with a poll that shows numbers that point to a Romney win and a few polls that show a convention bounce larger than 4-5 points. I was enlightening you. Apparently you didn’t love it that much.
No, but again, that’s not what you asked for. There are some polls that show numbers pointing to a Romney win. That’s all I was pointing out. Personally, I think the Romney campaign would be utterly foolish to take the rosiest possible scenario and bank on that, and in reality I’m fairly confident that they’re not doing that.
Again, I think you’re inferring much more into his analysis of the latest two OH polls than I am. What, specifically, do you think he’s implying?
There, yes. But as I said, I was looking more at the statements along the lines of “Nobody in Boston thinks we’re going to lose” and “the numbers point towards a Romney win.”
You are absolutely correct. I should not have phrased my post that way, it resulted in us speaking past each other, and I apologize.
IMO, the advisor is implying, via the statements I mentioned above, that Romney is winning, and that the “real” polls back that point of view up.
I’m sure this line has been trotted out for the past thirty years-- to no avail-- and it will probably be trotted out again in the next thirty years. What someone votes today has no bearing on what they’re vote is going to be tomorrow (plus the women comment makes no sense since, historically, Republicans tend to win men much the same way Democrats win women, though you never really hear anyone talking about how Democrats should be more “welcoming” to men).
…BTW> I’ve always been curious as to what constitutes a moderate. From what I’ve seen, a moderate Republican is someone who votes like a Democrat, though the opposite is never considered to be true.
You’ve got a good point here. I overlooked the “Nobody in Boston thinks we’re going to lose” line. I guess now that I look at it more carefully, I take it to mean “our staff is upbeat and we believe we’ll pull ahead in the next few weeks” rather than “we’re objectively analyzing the polling data and see ourselves running ahead of Obama right now” (which would be crazy).
As for “But the numbers actually point to a romney win barring something unforeseen.” I could propose a couple of suggestions, but I obviously don’t know if that’s what he’s referring to:
Obama is consistently below 50% in the polls. That’s generally considered a bad sign for incumbents.
Obama is up by a few points in averages that include “registered voter” polls. The Romney camp probably (rightly) expects Obama’s lead to diminish as more of the polls start using a likely-voter screen.
If either of these are their school of thought, the latest CNN/Opinion Research poll and Rasmussen daily tracking numbers have to be very troubling.
For me it’s pretty straightforward. A moderate is someone from either party who votes against there party something on the order of 20% of the time (and on big issues) or more.
Democratic moderate Senators would include Manchin, Tester, and McKaskill (and even more so Gov Nixon in MO).
I was not talking about voters, I was talking about politicians. I agree that voters are far more likely to change their opinions.
I’m old enough to remember them, and to have voted for some of them. Richard Nixon. Rockefeller. Gerald Ford. Even Bob Dole. The elder Bush was reasonably moderate too.
Actually as recently as the 1980s most Washington reps voted differently than the party line. And the media loved such cross-partisan deals, because it gave them something to report on. Today, you really only need to look at the party affiliation to get a good idea of the vote. During the 1980s pro-choice, pro-gun control Republican politicians were common, if not in the majority. The 1970s, 1960s and 1950s were even less rigid.
There’s a story about a Freshman Republican Representative during the 1950s casually referring to the Democrats as “The enemy”. One of the party leaders took him to task: “The Democrats are NOT the enemy (pause). The Senate is the enemy.” The point being that it was more difficult to deal with the other chamber than it was to deal with the opposing caucus.
History in the making: Watch the Republican Effort Unravel
Intrade just dropped Romney below 40% tonight. I saw a post there that made reference to The Princeton Election Contortium. They also aggregate polling data, but they make fewer ad hoc assumptions than Nate Silver. Obama’s re-elect probability is now 87% there. Personally, I can’t believe it to be that high. But perhaps the true odds are a little closer to 538 than to Intrade. Maybe. That would put Obama’s chances above 70%.
Frankly, with the election a little less than 2 months away, I can’t rule out game changers. But it seems to me that the Republican effort is crumbling. What’s funny is that the pros know this. During the Republican Convention, Chris Christie may have mentioned Romney’s name twice during his speech: it was all about toughness, not love, which conveniently stepped directly on Ann Romney’s preceding speech. You know you’re in trouble when high profile orators are distancing themselves from you at your own coronation. Maybe Christie figured that Romney’s name would be poison in a couple of years and he didn’t want to risk having a lot of videotape of him singing praises. Marco Rubio had a similar dynamic in play.
But the Republicans have a pretty substantial gap between the pros on top and the rank and file. Karl Rove may have thought that the evangelicals were insane and Boehner sometimes makes reference to Knuckle-draggers in his party, but as long as that stuff doesn’t get reported on Fox News or the Wall Street Journal there isn’t a problem. A credulous base has its advantages.
I thought it was telling in 2008 how little genuine support McCain seemed to have, but compared to their tepid support of Romney the conservative and Republican elite were like McCain zealots.
Can anyone imagine all those top conservatives publicly calling out Bush for not releasing his tax returns, the way they have done to Romney? It would never have happened.
Of course there’s always isolated incidents of being undercut by someone a candidate’s own side on a particular issue. But Romney really seems to have lacked genuine support all along.
I gotta think the “true conservatives” - the kind that want to call moderates RINOs and run them out of the party - had to be apalled that Romney took the votes and got the nomination. Still that stunning level of cognitive dissonance that they don’t get the clue that America at large doesn’t think like they do.
Imagine an alternate history. The Republicans decide they don’t want to embrace crank economics in 1980 so GHW Bush or John Anderson wins the Republican nomination. Bob Dole gets the nod in 1988. McCain wins in 1996.
As far as I can tell there would be no reason for Voyager to switch parties. I’m not sure I would have either. I could tolerate bombthrowers like Newt Gingrich as long as the adults were in charge. I would have still supported health care reform, because it is the only path for the US to get its long run finances in order. But so would Governor Romney, the hypothetical pro-Choice Republican candidate in 2008. He would have presented the stance of Nixon and his father, George Romney. To wit, “The Democrats promise universal health care. We promise universal health care. The difference is that we will do it right.” There would have been no reason for him to be all over the map. In fact, the key vulnerability that the Democrats would oppose him on would be his nonserious and inexpert foreign policy, veering into clownishness in this universe. When a candidate in 2011 rolls out his big foreign policy speech, he really should mention Al Qaeda. Otherwise it looks inept.
The reason the Republicans became an anti-government party is because there’s an anti-government constituency. European politics works fine with all the major parties being big government parties. American politics doesn’t work that way.
One thing I do agree with though is that the GOP really should have been trying to manage the government better. If they’d consistently owned an advantage on perceived competence and good government they’d be in much better shape.
Isn’t the Romney economic plan, tax cuts for the rich, off-shoring of those riches to tax havens, and maybe making American businesses leaner and more profitable for rich people by off-shoring more jobs. You’d need to be either very rich or very stupid to fall for it.
Heh. I wonder what the PPP haters will do now. (I follow PPP on Twitter, and they retweet some of the more rabid complaints they get, most of which implore like-minded people to only look at Rasmussen polls. And strangely, they hate on PPP no matter what the results show. If the poll is good news for a Democrat, PPP is faking it to build momentum for the Democrat. If it’s good news for a Republican, PPP is trying to lull them into complacency.)
The official 538 forecast has tightened for a 2nd day… hopefully that’ll stop soon while Obama’s lead is significantly greater than before the conventions and not go all the way back to the strong Obama lead that’s been the status quo all campaign.
But their “Now Cast” lead has expanded even more to where Romney now only have 11.8%. How embarrassing. I hope it drops to single digits, if only for a day.