Okay so looking at the Electoral Map...

[mercury14]

Just looking at this sucker... I'm going to assume Mr. Romney wins North Carolina... Romney is going to need to win both Florida and Ohio and then still pick up 17 more electoral votes somewhere. Even if he takes Virginia as well he'll still need to take one more battleground state on top of that. Romney has stopped advertising in Pennsylvania so that's out. And I doubt he's going to win New Hampshire.

Obama on the other hand can win if he just takes Florida and anything else, even tiny New Hampshire - it's just over if Obama takes Florida. If Obama takes Ohio but not Florida he only needs 15 more electoral votes; 15 appears to be a kind of magic number, exactly obtained by combining almost any two small battleground states.

Conclusion: Romney needs to scoop up a very high percentage of the battleground states no matter what, and if even a single large one goes to Obama, Obama will probably win. Romney needs to do something big, fast.

 

[phrodeau]

Romney smirked. Game over.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Counting chickens before the eggs hatch. Suppose Obama knew al Qaeda was gonna hit the embassy 2 days before it happened, and went campaigning.

 

[mercury14]

Counting chickens before the eggs hatch. Suppose Obama knew al Qaeda was gonna hit the embassy 2 days before it happened, and went campaigning.

How is saying Romney needs to win a lot of states counting chickens before they hatch?

 

[Sean Renaud]

Dear Obama,
Help Congress. You've got this shit in the bag yo.

 

[mercury14]

Dear Obama,
Help Congress. You've got this shit in the bag yo.

But here you go James.

 

[Wrong Element]

Just looking at this sucker... I'm going to assume Mr. Romney wins North Carolina... Romney is going to need to win both Florida and Ohio and then still pick up 17 more electoral votes somewhere. Even if he takes Virginia as well he'll still need to take one more battleground state on top of that. Romney has stopped advertising in Pennsylvania so that's out. And I doubt he's going to win New Hampshire.

Obama on the other hand can win if he just takes Florida and anything else, even tiny New Hampshire - it's just over if Obama takes Florida. If Obama takes Ohio but not Florida he only needs 15 more electoral votes; 15 appears to be a kind of magic number, exactly obtained by combining almost any two small battleground states.

Conclusion: Romney needs to scoop up a very high percentage of the battleground states no matter what, and if even a single large one goes to Obama, Obama will probably win. Romney needs to do something big, fast.

I'm not as close to the situation in Ohio as I used to be, but I don't think Romney has ever been in good shape there. He barely won the primary even though Santorum had already pretty much been counted out. The Republicans who win in Ohio tend to be either "ethnic" in some way or can make a cultural appeal to southern Ohioans, who basically vote like West Virginians. Willard doesn't qualify on either ground. And the auto thing is just killing him there.

I assume Florida is going to continue to be a problem because of (justifiable) worries over Medicare, though I can't discount the possibility of outright fraud if things stay close, given the history there (also not a mild concern in Ohio-- the last time the GOP was in charge for a presidential election, it was a train wreck by design).

My thinking is that Romney can't cherry-pick his way to a win anymore. For him to have a viable chance, something is going to have to happen to fundamentally change the entire race.

 

[mercury14]

I'm not as close to the situation in Ohio as I used to be, but I don't think Romney has ever been in good shape there. He barely won the primary even though Santorum had already pretty much been counted out. The Republicans who win in Ohio tend to be either "ethnic" in some way or can make a cultural appeal to southern Ohioans, who basically vote like West Virginians. Willard doesn't qualify on either ground. And the auto thing is just killing him there.

I assume Florida is going to continue to be a problem because of (justifiable) worries over Medicare, though I can't discount the possibility of outright fraud if things stay close, given the history there (also not a mild concern in Ohio-- the last time the GOP was in charge for a presidential election, it was a train wreck by design).

My thinking is that Romney can't cherry-pick his way to a win anymore. For him to have a viable chance, something is going to have to happen to fundamentally change the entire race.

On a related note I just requested an absentee ballot in Ohio. And what do ya know, no ID is required, just the last 4 digits of my social security number. Vote in person though and you get your ID checked. But right-leaning absentee voters face no such requirement. This after Republican secretary of state Jon Husted decided that polls in left-leaning precincts were closing earlier than right-leaning ones. (He was later forced to back off on that new policy after a federal judge made him).

Putin uses the same exact tactic.

Ohio Republicans are corrupt shitbags.

 

[Setanta84]

I think anyone who says Obama has this in the bag is being really premature and not taking several factors into account. Let me put them forward:

1) President Obama just left the only leg of the race where he will get to have the kind of financial dominance an incumbent usually enjoys in the presidential race. (Prior to actually receiving the nomination, Romney was limited by law to the funds that were earmarked for the primary. He went through most of that money nuking the shit out of every Non-Romney Frontrunner of the Month.)

2) Obama and his allies have been outraised most quarters of this cycle. They will be outspent. 9/10, the guy who raises and spends the most money wins.

3) The Democratic base is not more energized than they were in 2010. If you look at Democratic primary turnout and Republican primary turnout--not just in the presidential race but down the ballot as well--2x as many Republicans turned out to vote in most of the bellweather statistical areas than Democrats, even when the areas in question had major, highly competitive races down ballot. This points to the same "enthusiasm gap" that screwed the Dems in 2010.

4) OFA is still running the coordinated campaign. The Obama team takes a lot of credit for 2008. The truth is they ran a decent campaign against a campaign with no money or grassroots support from the Republican base that quickly became a joke. The only reason that 2008 was a Democratic wave year was that--like in 2006, the other Democratic wave year--Howard Dean was running the show and made sure the Party competed in every single state and congressional district. 2010 should show you what kind of campaign happens when the morons at OFA are in charge.

 

[mercury14]

It's definitely not over and yes Romney has obscene amounts of money to spend. But overall I think he's taken way more hits to his character and policies than he expected. I have no idea why Romney's campaign decided to be outspent early on during the critical time when voters are learning who he is.

 

[Super-Surprise]

 

[Adre]

He seems to lose ground every time he talks. If he has to depend on the debates he might be toast.

 

[Wrong Element]

I think anyone who says Obama has this in the bag is being really premature and not taking several factors into account. Let me put them forward:

1) President Obama just left the only leg of the race where he will get to have the kind of financial dominance an incumbent usually enjoys in the presidential race. (Prior to actually receiving the nomination, Romney was limited by law to the funds that were earmarked for the primary. He went through most of that money nuking the shit out of every Non-Romney Frontrunner of the Month.)

2) Obama and his allies have been outraised most quarters of this cycle. They will be outspent. 9/10, the guy who raises and spends the most money wins.

3) The Democratic base is not more energized than they were in 2010. If you look at Democratic primary turnout and Republican primary turnout--not just in the presidential race but down the ballot as well--2x as many Republicans turned out to vote in most of the bellweather statistical areas than Democrats, even when the areas in question had major, highly competitive races down ballot. This points to the same "enthusiasm gap" that screwed the Dems in 2010.

4) OFA is still running the coordinated campaign. The Obama team takes a lot of credit for 2008. The truth is they ran a decent campaign against a campaign with no money or grassroots support from the Republican base that quickly became a joke. The only reason that 2008 was a Democratic wave year was that--like in 2006, the other Democratic wave year--Howard Dean was running the show and made sure the Party competed in every single state and congressional district. 2010 should show you what kind of campaign happens when the morons at OFA are in charge.

1. That's true, but Romney has had plenty spent on his behalf by forces outside the campaign. I think that will make less difference than you suppose.

2. Also true and not insignificant, but Obama has the advantage of incumbency.

3. I don't think this is true anymore--and Democrats almost always do better in presidential years than in off years because their base contains more casual voters. I think you'll see near parity in those enthusiasm numbers the closer we get to the election.

4. I have some of those same concerns about the national party--the Democrats' refusal to compete in Texas is the main reason I might not even bother to vote myself, since I don't have anything to vote for that will make any difference--but on the specific question of Obama's likelihood of being reelected, this shouldn't be a concern.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

1. That's true, but Romney has had plenty spent on his behalf by forces outside the campaign. I think that will make less difference than you suppose.

2. Also true and not insignificant, but Obama has the advantage of incumbency.

3. I don't think this is true anymore--and Democrats almost always do better in presidential years than in off years because their base contains more casual voters. I think you'll see near parity in those enthusiasm numbers the closer we get to the election.

4. I have some of those same concerns about the national party--the Democrats' refusal to compete in Texas is the main reason I might not even bother to vote myself, since I don't have anything to vote for that will make any difference--but on the specific question of Obama's likelihood of being reelected, this shouldn't be a concern.

I somewhat disagree with #2.

I recently re-read "Freakonomics", there is a section entitled "Does money really buy elections?" They found this:

"When a candidate doubled their spending, holding everything else constant, they only got an extra one percent of the popular vote. It’s the same if you cut your spending in half, you only lose one percent of the popular vote. So we’re talking about really large swings in campaign spending with almost trivial changes in the vote. - Steve Levitt"

The study suggests is that money doesn’t necessarily cause a candidate to win — but, rather, that the kind of candidate who’s attractive to voters also ends up attracting a lot of money. So winning an election and raising money do go together, just as rain and umbrellas go together. But umbrellas don’t cause the rain. And it doesn’t seem as if money really causes electoral victories either, at least not nearly to the extent that the conventional wisdom says.

 

[Wrong Element]

I somewhat disagree with #2.

I recently re-read "Freakonomics", there is a section entitled "Does money really buy elections?" They found this:

"When a candidate doubled their spending, holding everything else constant, they only got an extra one percent of the popular vote. It’s the same if you cut your spending in half, you only lose one percent of the popular vote. So we’re talking about really large swings in campaign spending with almost trivial changes in the vote. - Steve Levitt"

The study suggests is that money doesn’t necessarily cause a candidate to win — but, rather, that the kind of candidate who’s attractive to voters also ends up attracting a lot of money. So winning an election and raising money do go together, just as rain and umbrellas go together. But umbrellas don’t cause the rain. And it doesn’t seem as if money really causes electoral victories either, at least not nearly to the extent that the conventional wisdom says.

If Romney keeps sputtering, it will be interesting to see if his primary backers start turning their attention to other races. Rich people typically don't stay that way by pissing away cash on lost causes.

 

[killallhippies]

don't jinx it, assholes. knock on some goddamned wood before the oak god kills us all.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Democrats are in a gloat mode this week, but the basic media laws of keeping the horserace going demand that Romney be depicted as coming from behind within the next month.

 

[Pookie]

Democrats are in a gloat mode this week, but the basic media laws of keeping the horserace going demand that Romney be depicted as coming from behind within the next month.

And the debates provide a good way to do that. An underdog on the rise against an incumbent could make for higher ratings during the time leading up to and after a debate.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Busybody]

Suppose Obama knew al Qaeda was gonna hit the embassy 2 days before it happened, and went campaigning.

he did

no one cares

he also SKIPPED the INTEL MEETING THE NEXT DAY

no one cares

 

[Pookie]

3) The Democratic base is not more energized than they were in 2010. If you look at Democratic primary turnout and Republican primary turnout--not just in the presidential race but down the ballot as well--2x as many Republicans turned out to vote in most of the bellweather statistical areas than Democrats, even when the areas in question had major, highly competitive races down ballot. This points to the same "enthusiasm gap" that screwed the Dems in 2010.

I would agree with this through last week, but recent polling indicates the gap in enthusiasm may have narrowed since the conventions. A Fox News poll actually shows supporters of Obama now more enthusiastic than Romney's.

An analysis here: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...oint-to-decline-in-enthusiasm-gap/#more-34463

There have been outlying results on either side. An ABC News/Washington Post poll released this week showed Mr. Obama leading Mr. Romney by six points among registered voters, but by just one point among likely voters — a five-point enthusiasm gap favoring Mr. Romney.

Conversely, a Fox News poll, released on Wednesday, showed a reverse enthusiasm gap, with Mr. Obama actually doing one point better in their likely-voter poll than in their survey of registered voters.

On average among the five polling results, however, the gap has been 1.4 percentage points favoring Mr. Romney — almost exactly in line with the historical average.

Will Democrats maintain this narrower gap? Or is it a temporary effect from the conventions?

It’s hard to know for sure, of course. Until we see more evidence, the forecast model is still assuming that the gap will be slightly wider than average, perhaps around two percentage points in Mr. Romney’s favor.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Busybody]

I would agree with this through last week, but recent polling indicates the gap in enthusiasm may have narrowed since the conventions. A Fox News poll actually shows supporters of Obama now more enthusiastic than Romney's.

An analysis here: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...oint-to-decline-in-enthusiasm-gap/#more-34463

STFU, YOU FUCKING CUNT!

 

[Pookie]

And the last debate before the election will be on the subject of foreign policy.

There are few undecided voters left. Historically, undecideds late in the campaign tend to break for the incumbent - the whole 'devil you know' thingie. Romney has done nothing but hurt himself so far when it comes to foreign policy. He might be exceptional in the private sector, but he's running for a public sector job. McCain had a strong edge on Obama in 2008. Obama is sitting in a better position today.

At this point, the main strategy is going to be more about getting the base out to vote. Obama's acceptance speech was gear specifically for that. Over the next few months, whoever does a better job of turning out their base on Election Day will likely win.

 

[Busybody]

There are few undecided voters left. Historically, undecideds late in the campaign tend to break for the incumbent .

that is NOT true, FUCKING CUNT~!