Okay, I'm calling it. Romney's toast.

[angrysoba]

First, the idea that Republicans will vote Republican no matter what is plainly not true...in fact, a number of high profile Republicans have spoken up to state that they'll vote for Obama in the next election. And there will likely be more who simply won't vote at all...they won't vote for Obama because he's a Democrat, but they won't vote for Romney either.

I did say "effectively". However, you did say "a number" of high profile Republicans have said that they will vote for Obama. Could you give us some idea of what this number is because "a number" could be trivial or it could be significant. My guess is that the number will be trivial.

Further, there is an important point that since 1972 Obama's election saw the highest turnout of voters. I hope no one is making the mistake of thinking the number of voters will remain constant. If the number of voters is very low then it will be bad for Obama.

1972 140,776,000 77,744,027 55.22%
1976 152,309,190 81,531,584 53.53%
1980. 164,597,000 86,574,904 52.60%
1984. 174,466,000 92,653,233 53.11%
1988. 182,778,000 91,594,686 50.11%
1992 189,529,000 104,423,923 55.10%
1996 196,511,000 96,277,634 49.00%
2000 205,815,000 105,405,100 51.21%
2004 215,694,000 122,267,553 56.69%
2008 231,229,580 132,645,504 57.37%

And yes, R. Mackey, while you can argue that Romney maybe completely hapless and that nothing that might go his way will be his doing this might be of no importance to the end result.

By the way, I am supporting Obama in this race. I can't vote so don't ask me to, but I think too many people are getting carried away with wishful thinking.

Remember that ultimately, Romney wearing blackface, or him putting a dog with the squits on his car roof, or wearing "magic underwear", or promising to drown babies of the dependent 47%, or hoping to asset-strip the USA and sell it off to China is not what wins or loses elections. What wins or loses elections is how many votes a candidate gets*, so to some extent it is all irrelevant until people vote and anybody who is trying to canvas for Obama had better not forget that.





* and voter fraud and weird state laws on voting rights and bog-standard corruption, but you know what I mean.

 

[angrysoba]

Okay, I did a bit of Googling to find out the number of Republicans who might go for Obama.

I found this site: http://www.republicansforobama.org/

Somebody connected to it seems to have written a piece for the Washington Times which said:

In the 2008 presidential election, about 9 percent of self-identified Republicans who voted supported Mr. Obama, exit polling showed. The Republican candidate, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, received about 10 percent of Democratic voters.

It’s unlikely that the president will duplicate his crossover rate of four years ago, polling and political analysts suggest. Gallup polling shows that about 6 percent of Republicans say they will vote for the president, and the same percentage of Democrats say they will support Mr. Romney. A Pew Research survey taken in July showed identical numbers.



Read more: 'Extremists' chase some Republicans toward Obama - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...epublicans-toward-obama/?page=2#ixzz27D5TeSdl
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

So, while 9 per cent of Republicans voting for Obama seems significant at first it doesn't effectively make a difference if 10 per cent of Democrats voted for McCain.

In this case, according to the article, the number of Republicans expected to vote for Obama is cancelled out by the number of Democrats who will cross party lines.

 

[remirol]

About the worst thing that could happen to the Democrats right now is to get complacent because they think it's over.

Oh, it is over, as long as Democrats show up at the polls and Obama doesn't completely faceplant somehow.

I know that around Oct 6th, however, I'm going to personally modify the "tone" of the message I distribute among the places I have access to, and that tone is going to be "GET OUT AND VOTE: REMEMBER 2000."

There's little need to over-pursue raw votes. Romney's done for on that front; there just aren't enough swing voters left, people have almost all made up their minds. He cooked himself over the past month, and it was a stir-fry, not a slow boil. The only thing that is left to save Romney is either an Obama implosion (super unlikely as long as he always stops and thinks before he speaks, advice Romney would have done well to heed) or Obama voters thinking it's in the bag and not voting.

But "Remember 2000" ought to be enough of a wake-up call for everyone.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Oh, it is over, as long as Democrats show up at the polls and Obama doesn't completely faceplant somehow.

I know that around Oct 6th, however, I'm going to personally modify the "tone" of the message I distribute among the places I have access to, and that tone is going to be "GET OUT AND VOTE: REMEMBER 2000."

There's little need to over-pursue raw votes. Romney's done for on that front; there just aren't enough swing voters left, people have almost all made up their minds. He cooked himself over the past month, and it was a stir-fry, not a slow boil. The only thing that is left to save Romney is either an Obama implosion (super unlikely as long as he always stops and thinks before he speaks, advice Romney would have done well to heed) or Obama voters thinking it's in the bag and not voting.

But "Remember 2000" ought to be enough of a wake-up call for everyone.

I remember 2000. It was painful. Dropped football on the one-yard line, seemed like.

I hope you're right, and "Remember 2000" hits as a get-out-the-vote theme.

 

[rcfieldz]

Watch me

Let's see if he can pull another rabbit out of his hat...
Man after I read this even I think it sounds crazy!

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Let's see if he can pull another rabbit out of his hat...
Man after I read this even I think it sounds crazy!

Presto! --he fell into the hat.

 

[Olowkow]

There must be a much more robust dialogue about voter suppression. I am becoming more and more alarmed that this could be a significant factor. Now it's college students they're going after.

 

[johnny karate]

There must be a much more robust dialogue about voter suppression. I am becoming more and more alarmed that this could be a significant factor. Now it's college students they're going after.

Holy crap. They're not even making an effort to hide it anymore.

Starting at the 8:30 mark in the video clip in the above link, GOP Speaker of the state house in New Hampshire explains to a Tea Party group why these new voter registration laws are so important:

... the kids coming out of the schools and basically doing what I did when I was a kid: foolishly voting as a liberal. That's what kids do. They don't have life experience and they just vote their feelings.

It's simply breath-taking the depths these supposed freedom-loving, small government advocates will sink to in order to restrict the rights of those against whom they are ideologically opposed.

Edit: It should be noted that the story in the above link is over a year old, and the law being discussed did not get passed.

 

[MattusMaximus]

All of this, I think, is a good thing...I for one absolutely don't want to see Romney in charge. But more than that, I think that a loss in this election will cause a major fracture within the Republican Party itself, with a real schism developing between the extremists and the moderates. And I hope that the result would be for the Tea Partiers to try to start their own party (a la Ron Paul), and let the Republicans get back to being a more moderate (if still conservative) party.

I think this is one of the most hopeful developments of an Obama win. Of course, back in 2008 I was also hopeful that the Republican party would moderate itself after McCain's defeat, and they did the exact opposite and up popped the Tea Party.

Perhaps this time will be different. I certainly hope so.

 

[Aridas]

About the worst thing that could happen to the Democrats right now is to get complacent because they think it's over.

The leaders certainly don't seem to be, as I keep getting spammed by requests for donations and warnings about how very much Republicans are spending.

 

[Tricky]

I think this is one of the most hopeful developments of an Obama win. Of course, back in 2008 I was also hopeful that the Republican party would moderate itself after McCain's defeat, and they did the exact opposite and up popped the Tea Party.

Perhaps this time will be different. I certainly hope so.

Don't hold your breath. The base of the GOP still seems to believe that McCain lost (and Romney is losing) because they haven't gone far enough to the right. I'm not sure that anything will convince them otherwise.

 

[Robrob]

It's simply breath-taking the depths these supposed freedom-loving, small government advocates will sink to in order to restrict the rights of those against whom they are ideologically opposed

Yep. They feel strongly we need more laws to prevent a crime (voter fraud) which isn't actually happening...

Same way they feel strongly we need more laws to prevent a crime (illegal immigration) rather than simply prosecuting the people who hire the criminals.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Don't hold your breath. The base of the GOP still seems to believe that McCain lost (and Romney is losing) because they haven't gone far enough to the right. I'm not sure that anything will convince them otherwise.

Well, if that's the case, then the GOP leadership had better get used to a long losing streak.

 

[AdMan]

Well, if that's the case, then the GOP leadership had better get used to a long losing streak.

Given the demographic trends in this country, I fully agree.

 

[332nd]

Don't hold your breath. The base of the GOP still seems to believe that McCain lost (and Romney is losing) because they haven't gone far enough to the right. I'm not sure that anything will convince them otherwise.

This.

Lately, I've been hearing a lot of "If Perry/Cain/Santorum were the nom he'd be crushing Obama!"

(Granted, I now live in Rush Limbaugh's home town so... grain of salt & all that.)

 

[DavidJames]

This.

Lately, I've been hearing a lot of "If Perry/Cain/Santorum were the nom he'd be crushing Obama!"

(Granted, I now live in Rush Limbaugh's home town so... grain of salt & all that.)

I think that just shows the echo chambers in which the Tea Party crowd live. The Tea Party can mobilize their base and other right wing/libertarian nut bags, but if any of those were the nominee I suspect the numbers would be skewed even further in Obama direction, maybe 20-25% more. The independents would be flocking to Obama (or running like mad from the Republican).

I hope the lesson they think they've learned from this is to slink even further right. Doing so will twist the dagger they inserted beginning with Palin.

The "Party of Lincoln" is long dead. The "Party of Reagan" is approaching the death watch.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Don't hold your breath. The base of the GOP still seems to believe that McCain lost (and Romney is losing) because they haven't gone far enough to the right. I'm not sure that anything will convince them otherwise.

This.

Lately, I've been hearing a lot of "If Perry/Cain/Santorum were the nom he'd be crushing Obama!"

(Granted, I now live in Rush Limbaugh's home town so... grain of salt & all that.)

This is more of that cocoon thinking. These guys listen to themselves and to other arch conservatives on radio and Fox (or "Romney Campaign HQ", as Jon Stewart correctly points out), and then they read blogs on Breitbart and Investor's Daily, and tune in to hear George Will give the weekly "Smart Guy" pep talk on Sunday morning.... and they don't hear any other voices.

The best thing that's come of their free-wheeling shoot your mouth off firebrand conservatism this year has been that the likes of Akins and Rush have managed to do something Obama was having trouble with - mobilizing and motivating the women's vote and youth vote. Romney's 47% statement was a gift that will keep on giving up to election day. Will it win the Dems both houses? Not likely, but one can hope. Will it give them the Senate? Yes, pretty much so. Has it handed Obama a second term? Definitely.

Essentially, Mitt didn't lose any conservative votes - he merely mobilized a lot of folks who might've otherwise stayed home to get out and vote Democrat. And the reason the Senate races are shifting is that there's just no there, there in the GOP program. "See how bad he is" only gets you so far. With no meat in their platform or plans, all non-committed voters hear is "... and we'll bring back the good old days of 2007".

 

[R.Mackey]

Don't hold your breath. The base of the GOP still seems to believe that McCain lost (and Romney is losing) because they haven't gone far enough to the right. I'm not sure that anything will convince them otherwise.

This does seem to be the case.

Which leaves me with a bit of a quandry. Do I vote my heart and go with Gary Johnson? Or do I pile on out of my desire to see the GOP handed the most stinging rebuke possible, and add my worthless California-predetermined vote to Obama's pile?

I don't often vote out of spite, but something about the sheer patronizing nature of Romney's campaign is bringing out unusual feelings...

 

[MattusMaximus]

There still is one scenario in which Romney controls his own fate, and that is if he absolutely smashes Obama in the debates. It's not impossible, and I think they are about equal in debating talent, but I do believe that Obama has vastly superior weaponry on his side due to Romney's flip-flopping, secrets, and gaffes. So it's a tall order for Mitt, but not impossible.

Agreed. I expect that Romney is going to have a rough go of it in the debates for multiple reasons:

1. In the domestic debate, three words: health care reform

2. In the foreign policy debate... well, who's got the experience? Duh.

3. Romney has stacked up a pile of gaffes taller than the moderator's notes. That will make wonderful fodder.

So, while it isn't impossible for Romney to do well in the debates, he certainly has the deck stacked against him. And if I were betting money on who would win the debates, I'd bet on Obama.

It also depends upon what one means by "win the debates". From Obama's position, a "win" would simply mean holding off Romney to a reasonable degree - that's because Romney has dug a really deep hole for himself and all Obama has to do is sit back and look presidential.

For Romney to "win", he needs an absolute knock-out performace in the debates.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I think that just shows the echo chambers in which the Tea Party crowd live. The Tea Party can mobilize their base and other right wing/libertarian nut bags, but if any of those were the nominee I suspect the numbers would be skewed even further in Obama direction, maybe 20-25% more. The independents would be flocking to Obama (or running like mad from the Republican).

I certainly hope there are reasonable, intelligent Republicans who realize the danger of this kind of scho chamber group think. Otherwise, it will spell disaster for their party.

I hope the lesson they think they've learned from this is to slink even further right. Doing so will twist the dagger they inserted beginning with Palin.

I disagree. I hope they learn the opposite lesson and begin to moderate themselves. Of course, that would mean the moderates would have to wage a long and protracted battle for the heart of the GOP against the religious right and Tea Party. And that will be a pretty nasty fight.

But if the moderates can take some semblance of control back from the wingnuts, then I might one day be able to consider voting Republican again. And I would like to be able to have another viable party beyond the Democrats to consider.

The "Party of Lincoln" is long dead. The "Party of Reagan" is approaching the death watch.

Sad, but true.