Mitt Romney, liar.

[BenBurch]

From http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/:

Obama is currently favored over Romney 65.6% to 34.4% -- nearly a 2 to 1 advantage.

If you don't know about Nate Silver and his historical accuracy regarding election predictions due to his statistical approach, you've had your head in the sand. Right now, Romney's ship isn't sunk but it's listing to one side very badly and anything else is liable to toast him.

You can call that "crap" all you like, but the facts read: if Romney doesn't manage a miracle it's four more years.

If Nate Silver tomorrow predicted that Howdy Doody was going to be elected in November, I'd be forced to seriously consider the idea - that is how good Nate Silver is.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Re: allegation that McCain got 23 years of Romney tax returns while considering him as a running mate:

I think it's true.

But why?

McCain being *that* assiduous in vetting Romney, then missing the big bombs wrt to Palin (unwed teenage daughter pregnant and Sarah herself facing ethics charges) doesn't ring true to me.

And yet again, how would Obama spokesmen know something like this anyway? If there was an estranged McCain campaign insider, let's see a quote from that person.

 

[BenBurch]

Re: allegation that McCain got 23 years of Romney tax returns while considering him as a running mate:


But why?

McCain being *that* assiduous in vetting Romney, then missing the big bombs wrt to Palin (unwed teenage daughter pregnant and Sarah herself facing ethics charges) doesn't ring true to me.

And yet again, how would Obama spokesmen know something like this anyway? If there was an estranged McCain campaign insider, let's see a quote from that person.

Yeah, that would be very out-of-line for the world-class campaign McCain ran.

 

[remirol]

From http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/:

Obama is currently favored over Romney 65.6% to 34.4% -- nearly a 2 to 1 advantage.

If you don't know about Nate Silver and his historical accuracy regarding election predictions due to his statistical approach, you've had your head in the sand. Right now, Romney's ship isn't sunk but it's listing to one side very badly and anything else is liable to toast him.

You can call that "crap" all you like, but the facts read: if Romney doesn't manage a miracle it's four more years.

If Nate Silver tomorrow predicted that Howdy Doody was going to be elected in November, I'd be forced to seriously consider the idea - that is how good Nate Silver is.

To be perfectly fair and a bit more clear: Yes, a 2 to 1 advantage still lets in the guy on the short end of the stick 1 out of every 3 times. But I know which way I'd bet, and there is a big difference between predicting 2-to-1 odds on an election and 2-to-1 odds on a three-sided die or coin.

The models in which Romney comes out winner are largely themselves all predicated on events such as "Obama is found in bed with a live goat" or more reasonable ones such as "Economy crashes through the floor again". And despite the possibility of those events themselves happening, that's _still_ only enough to bring Romney's chances up to barely-better-than-1/3.

If I understood statistics even a tenth as well as Mr. Silver does, I would be working in the field somewhere, so I can't pretend to be able to know what exactly he's taking into account and how. But I do know that his model predicted the dip after the jobs report came out, and sure enough, there was a dip, and he has a paragraph up there somewhere explaining "This is why it didn't matter more than it did overall."

 

[Upchurch]

If Nate Silver tomorrow predicted that Howdy Doody was going to be elected in November, I'd be forced to seriously consider the idea - that is how good Nate Silver is.

Well put.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Since we're into rank speculation now: My rank speculation is that the people who run Bain were not so stupid that it wouldn't have occurred to them to appoint an interim CEO or an acting CEO to take over if Romney left so quickly that all the succession details couldn't be worked out before he left. I see no reason for his maintaining the title of CEO if he had no involvement with Bain, at least the power to review major decisions (or that he wanted the $100k).

 

[Upchurch]

Since we're into rank speculation now: My rank speculation is that the people who run Bain were not so stupid that it wouldn't have occurred to them to appoint an interim CEO or an acting CEO to take over if Romney left so quickly that all the succession details couldn't be worked out before he left.

At the very least, it shouldn't have taken 2-3 years for someone to fill the role/title, at least in a temporary capacity. Romney's best-case scenario is that this is a Rube Goldberg-ian clerical error.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yeah, that would be very out-of-line for the world-class campaign McCain ran.

Yes, it would be out of line for McCain to have been assiduous in vetting one candidate but grossly negligent in vetting the one he actually picked.

So again, do we have a credible source for this? (Obama campaign spokespersons are not credible sources since there is no reason to think they would have exclusive access to this information if they had access to it at all.)

 

[Sabrina]

According to OpenSecrets.org, the website that tracks election spending, Obama currently has approximately $110 million dollars on hand, while Romney only has approximately $17 million (earmarked for the campaign that is; this isn't referring to his personal money). Overall fundraising and spending is as follows:

Barack Obama:

Total Raised: $255,162,109
Total Spent: $147,747,393
Cash on Hand: $109,718,115
Debts: $1,207,807
Date of Report: May 31, 2012

Mitt Romney:

Total Raised: $121,023,126
Total Spent: $104,036,499
Cash on Hand: $16,999,666
Debts: $0
Date of Report: May 31, 2012

They haven't released the June report yet, so those numbers may have changed, but overall President Obama has far more funds earmarked for the election than Romney does.

Of particular note, I think, is the actual source of the fundraising. President Obama has thus far relied equally on small and large individual contributions (a statistically negligible amount comes from other sources) as seen here:

Individual Contributions $254,686,011 (100%)
- Small Individual Contributions $109,557,183 (43%)
- Large Individual Contributions $148,100,312 (58%)
PAC Contributions $0 (0%)
Candidate self-financing $0 (0%)
Federal Funds $0 (0%)
Other $476,098 (0%)

Romney, on the other hand, has relied largely on the large individual contributions and PAC contributions, as seen here:

Individual Contributions $120,076,230 (99%)
- Small Individual Contributions $15,660,063 (13%)
- Large Individual Contributions $105,541,069 (87%)
PAC Contributions $766,853 (1%)
Candidate self-financing $52,500 (0%)
Federal Funds $0 (0%)
Other $127,544 (0%)

I find this interesting because, if President Obama can raise that much more than Mitt Romney while relying almost solely on smaller individual contributions, than it may not matter as much how much money the various Super PACs can throw out there; there would be a sufficient number of people making their preference known. I know Romney has outraised President Obama over the last two months, but again, as I understand it that is largely because of the billionaires that contributed extremely large (wasn't one up to $10 million from one person?) checks, and they can only do that so many times before it becomes fiscally and legally unfeasible for them (there's only so much you can personally contribute to a presidential campaign in a year, as I understand it).

Granted, President Obama has managed to stockpile his funds while Romney was fighting in the primaries for the Republican nomination and therefore had to spend a good deal of what he was taking in, but we've only got four months left before the election; I'm not sure even Romney can make up a nearly $100 million dollar shortfall in that amount of time, given that the Democrats will be fundraising hard as well. I think Romney is going to have to rely on the various Super PACs on his side (and he's got more than President Obama does) to try and make his case via television and advertising, and I think many people realize that those ads are not all that reliable (the ones from the candidates themselves seem to be more stringent in their data gathering, to some extent, although they aren't perfect by any stretch of the imagination).

Bottom line is, right now in the electoral college President Obama has 297 votes to Mitt Romney's 241, and there are only five swing states left (Iowa, North Carolina, Florida, New Hampshire, and Michigan); all the rest are statistically stronger for one candidate over the other (although there's still some wiggle room in some of the states). 24 states plus DC are for Obama; the remaining 26 states are for Romney. So in other words, if we go by state the country is evenly divided; but since the majority of the states with more electoral votes are voting largely Democratic and are likely to be wins for Obama, he is currently winning the election. That's just the way it is.

Romney's potential lies about how much time he actually spent at Bain capital are telling to me, and the fact that he's apparently attempting the schoolyard retort of "I'm rubber and you're glue" by calling President Obama a liar says to me that he's got something to hide, and I for one want to know what it is. Romney's apparent unwillingness to address the actual meat of the issue here is making me view him as extremely untrustworthy, and while there wasn't really any danger of my vote ever swinging his way, people who were on the fence might now be wondering why he's so vehement in his unwillingness to actually speak about the very thing he's touting as his strength in this campaign. In short, I think Romney is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. That's just my opinion, however.

 

[Unabogie]

TPM also repeats that the 23 years is accurate:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/07/romneys_big_tax_return_tell.php

Remember, in the VP vetting process Romney gave the McCain campaign over 20 years of tax returns. Schmidt ran that campaign and my hunch is he has the best combination of political smarts and actual knowledge of what’s in the returns to make the call.

I think that he`s the front-runner in the race. I think he`s the most likely person to be the nominee of the party. And I would never advise him to disadvantage himself with issues like his taxes, against what is precedent for campaigns.

I think that he will probably do what presidents and vice presidents typically have done with regard to the release of their taxes. But if it was good enough for John Kerry, it ought to be good enough for Mitt Romney. He shouldn`t release information that disadvantages himself and opens up a lot of attacks.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

At the very least, it shouldn't have taken 2-3 years for someone to fill the role/title, at least in a temporary capacity. Romney's best-case scenario is that this is a Rube Goldberg-ian clerical error.

And even then it wouldn't account for the multiple lines of evidence that lead to the conclusion that Romney did indeed have an active (though part-time) role in running the company.

It wouldn't even account for the multiple instances of the evidence in SEC filings. (A Goldbergian clerical error that was made repeatedly?)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

TPM also repeats that the 23 years is accurate:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/07/romneys_big_tax_return_tell.php

I don't consider a blog article repeating the allegation (that is quickly becoming widely accepted by many anti-Romney bloggers) to be a reliable source either. He is simply repeating what the other articles said but stripping off the indirect quote to the Obama campaign spokesman. This is exactly the sort of thing I feared would happen.

A source is at the beginning of the information stream, not at the end of it.

 

[Unabogie]

I've just emailed TPM. I'll report back what they say if they respond.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

According to OpenSecrets.org, the website that tracks election spending, Obama currently has approximately $110 million dollars on hand, while Romney only has approximately $17 million (earmarked for the campaign that is; this isn't referring to his personal money). Overall fundraising and spending is as follows:

Sounds about right.

I think AlBell misread reports that Romney has lately been out-fundraising Obama.

Either that or he read something that compared Obama's war chest (alone) to that of Romney plus the pro-Romney/anti-Obama PACs and other organizations that electioneer (yes, GPS Crossroads is officially not a PAC and not subject to the relatively anemic disclosure laws that currently exist!).

 

[Ziggurat]

And even then it wouldn't account for the multiple lines of evidence that lead to the conclusion that Romney did indeed have an active (though part-time) role in running the company.

It wouldn't even account for the multiple instances of the evidence in SEC filings. (A Goldbergian clerical error that was made repeatedly?)

According to two Obama supporters who worked at Bain at the time, Romney had left, but legal technicalities required that his name remain on the SEC filings even though he was gone.

 

[RandFan]

I don't consider a blog article repeating the allegation (that is quickly becoming widely accepted by many anti-Romney bloggers) to be a reliable source either. He is simply repeating what the other articles said but stripping off the indirect quote to the Obama campaign spokesman. This is exactly the sort of thing I feared would happen.

A source is at the beginning of the information stream, not at the end of it.

It's been reported so often I'm curious why McCain or Steve Schmidt wouldn't correct the claim. Now, that isn't proof but why would folks like McCain having been asked to comment not correct the claim?

NewsMax
Washington Post
Examiner
HuffPo

 

[BenBurch]

Well, since it appears the allegations are true, what then?

Obama cannot simply order Holder to convene a grand jury - Way too much conflict of interest.

I think a special prosecutor of unimpeachable character needs to be appointed, and I can only think of one man I would give the job; Patrick Fitzgerald.

 

[Brainster]

To be perfectly fair and a bit more clear: Yes, a 2 to 1 advantage still lets in the guy on the short end of the stick 1 out of every 3 times. But I know which way I'd bet, and there is a big difference between predicting 2-to-1 odds on an election and 2-to-1 odds on a three-sided die or coin.

No, there isn't. That's the whole point of odds-making. And if you look at the graphs and charts and maps on the sidebar, the trend for Obama is downward. Electoral college votes: Down 5.3 in the last week. Odds of winning: Down 2.7 percentage points. Popular vote: Down 0.2 percentage points.

 

[BenBurch]

Bill Clinton expresses his opinion;

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/07/13/clinton_attacks_on_romney_s_bain_tenure_legitimate_.html

<SNIP>

"I think, for one thing, it’s just as relevant as the going over my record as governor when I ran for president," Clinton said in an interview that aired on NBC's Today show on Friday morning (via Politico). "And because he’s put it at the forefront. He’s said basically, 'I’d be a better president because I know how to create jobs because that’s what I did.' And he’s going to take credit for running a successful Olympics, for example. So then all your work life before you run for president is relevant, and I think that will be relevant."

<SNIP>

 

[BenBurch]

No, there isn't. That's the whole point of odds-making. And if you look at the graphs and charts and maps on the sidebar, the trend for Obama is downward. Electoral college votes: Down 5.3 in the last week. Odds of winning: Down 2.7 percentage points. Popular vote: Down 0.2 percentage points.

Re-read what he wrote, Brainster. You appear to be responding to things he didn't claim.