• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

Does not compute... If the race is dangerously close, then nobody would be abandoning Romney. I say it's much farther apart than it appears.

I think it's fairly close when it comes to the popular vote, with most polls I'm seeing showing any difference within the margin of error, but with Obama with a significant advantage where it politically matters, the electoral college. Obama's got about 230 electoral votes pretty much in the bag right now, Romney only about 190 despite the polls showing a mostly dead heat in the overall population.

Now that being said I've always had a gut feeling that for all practical purpose the election was over when once the two major parties announced their candidates. The idea that there's this huge population of "Swing" or "Undecided" voters that the candidates have to fight tooth and nail for until the last minute is mostly B.S I think. I think the heavy last minute campaigning is more for political points and fundraising purposes then actually doing anything to change the results of the election.

I'm betting if we held the election right now, hell if we held it 2 or 3 months ago, the results would be pretty much the same as if we held them in November.
 
Last edited:
Don't get me wrong, I don't want another 8 years of Reagan crap but compared to the the Tea Party **** you I got mine, and the **** the country, all we care about is making Obama a one term president attitude of the main stream Republicans today, the Reagan years, in comparison were better. As bad as Reagan was, he occasionally worked with Democrats and performed the (per current Republican mantra) mortal sin of raising taxes when needed.

I've never been a Republican. I've never agreed with or supported most Republican party platforms. (But to be fair I never agreed with or supported most Democratic party party platforms...)

But even in my short lifetime while I can never remember a point where I didn't think the Republicans were wrong, I can remember I point where I didn't think they were crazy.

And honestly the Republicans going into the crazy skid has caused me to lose a lot of respect for the Democrats as well. When your opponents have completely divorced themselves from reality you should be able to do a little better then "Tying them or winning by a 1 or 2% margin every time we go head to head."
 
The really DISheartening thing is that it isn't a blow out for the Democrats, despite some of the most pig-headed, morally bankrupt, knuckle-dragging behavior out of the Republican party in living memory.
It's the economy, stu... um... studly. :D

Right now, Republicans are wringing their hands because they can't gain ground in a year when many economic factors are way down, especially employment. And it is true, that in most economic downturns, that would be a death knell for the President's party. It is only because of factors you mention above that the election isn't a blowout for the GOP.

So it balances out.
 
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.
Even before the election was over and it was clear Obama would win, I remember a lot of republicans lamenting that the election was lost because the campaign wasn't conservative enough.
 
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.
Looking at this election's campaign, I get the impression that the GOP's strategy hasn't been to gain any independent voters at all, but to try to get a high turnout by rallying their constituents with rhetoric and positions that lie not at the right-center of the spectrum, but of their own base, and hope it will be enough.

I don't think it is, and looking at the demographic development, it will never again be. They are trying to whip their supporters into a 2008 Obama level euphoria, but there just aren't enough of them any more (also they did it so ham-handedly that you could give them bread mittens and call it a sandwich). There is no ground to gain on the right. Everyone who supports their current policies is already voting for them, as is everyone to the right of them. And the always-republican base is shrinking.
 

Before I even got into the article, I see a gun advertisement, an ad for a book bashing liberals, and an unflattering cartoon of Obama. Okay, that sets the tone. Then the first sentence.

You’re the elite, the cream of the national press corps (That’s pronounced “core” rather than “corpse,” which the president botched recently.

Yeah, that's a good, unbiased source. :rolleyes:
 
It's the economy, stu... um... studly. :D

Right now, Republicans are wringing their hands because they can't gain ground in a year when many economic factors are way down, especially employment. And it is true, that in most economic downturns, that would be a death knell for the President's party. It is only because of factors you mention above that the election isn't a blowout for the GOP.

So it balances out.

538 points out today that the economic problems are hurting Obama, it seems. Normally an incumbent should have like a 7 point lead. The fact that Romney is in this at all is a sign of how Obama is being hurt by the economy.

Another thing pointed out: Historically, candidates sitting as Obama is now have won 8/10 elections, with the exceptions being Truman over Dewey and Bush over Gore, but even there Gore still won the popular vote. So it takes pretty much a freak result for this to not go Obama's way.
 
538 points out today that the economic problems are hurting Obama, it seems. Normally an incumbent should have like a 7 point lead. The fact that Romney is in this at all is a sign of how Obama is being hurt by the economy.

Another thing pointed out: Historically, candidates sitting as Obama is now have won 8/10 elections, with the exceptions being Truman over Dewey and Bush over Gore, but even there Gore still won the popular vote. So it takes pretty much a freak result for this to not go Obama's way.
Huh? I don't know what history you're talking about. Truman was the incumbent and he won (unless you believe Chicago newspapers.) Neither GW Bush nor Gore was an incumbeent. The two are Reagan over Carter. Clinton over GHW Bush? And what did both in? The economy. So winning over an incumbent in a time of poor economy is not exactly a "freak" result. It's pretty common.
 
Huh? I don't know what history you're talking about. Truman was the incumbent and he won (unless you believe Chicago newspapers.)

That's a different issue. You are conflating two different points.

At the end of September, Dewey was way ahead in the polls. However, Truman came back to win the election.

Similarly, Gore was ahead of Bush at this point. He finished ahead of Bush in the popular vote.

Neither GW Bush nor Gore was an incumbeent. The two are Reagan over Carter. Clinton over GHW Bush? And what did both in? The economy. So winning over an incumbent in a time of poor economy is not exactly a "freak" result. It's pretty common.

Not when you are trailing in the polls at the end of September. Then it is very UNCOMMON, and has only occurred with Dewey defeats Truman and Bush winning the electoral college but not the popular vote.
 
Huh? I don't know what history you're talking about. Truman was the incumbent and he won (unless you believe Chicago newspapers.)

That's a different issue. You are conflating two different points.


I think the confusion stems from your use of the word "sitting" when talking about Obama. I also read that as referring to a "sitting president"--i.e., the incumbent. I see now that you meant where he is sitting in the polls.
 
Last edited:
I was listening to NPR this morning and Cokie Roberts was talking about how the Republicans might react if Obama wins again. She said that if Obama wins by a squeaker then the Republicans blame Romney for the loss and not the right wing of the party but if Obama wins more significantly, then they might reassess the right wing extreme. Similarly, I think one of the political scientists pointed it out that in any Republican that had a lower popular vote than Obama in their district would start paying attention which I'm sure is true in any election.

I'm just inclined to believe the Republicans will blame any loss to Romney and not on unpopular Republican policies.
 
Either you're 80 years old, or you've interviewed a lot of 80 year-olds, or you may not know what you're talking about and should probably revisit your starting assumptions. Especially if you're reaching a conclusion as implausible as the one quoted above.

Oh? What do you posit is as bad or worse out of the Conservative movement in terms of behavior in the last 40 years, let alone 80?
 
Does not compute... If the race is dangerously close, then nobody would be abandoning Romney. I say it's much farther apart than it appears. The media are doing their best to keep it interesting, but for all intents and purposes Romney's flat out done. Cash was his only real ally, and cash can no longer help him.

Then why are the polls still so close?

I agree except I'd argue Nixon was still far slimier than Romney. Romney reminds me more of the second coming of Warren Harding. :(

Nixon was a crook and a dirty tricks player, to be sure, but as bad as the bunch of neaderthals we're stuck with now? When did he ever talk about rape like Akin? Or "kill the poor" like Ryan?

Nixon's actual record on social policy is much more liberal than that. He would be considered a moderate progressive based on what he ACTUALLY did.

http://ashbrook.org/publications/dialogue-hayward/

It is largely because of these hardened personal and political positions that conservatives then and now have tended to rally to Nixon’s cause while liberals maintain a blind hatred for him. In fact the Nixon public policy record would justify reversing these allegiances; any other president who compiled Nixon’s domestic and foreign record would be regarded as standing firmly in the liberal progressive tradition. Johnson has gone down in the history books as the big spender for social welfare programs, yet federal spending grew faster during Nixon’s tenure than during Johnson’s.

It was under Nixon that social spending came to exceed defense spending for the first time. Social spending soared from $55 billion in 1970 (Nixon’s first budget) to $132 billion in 1975, from 28 percent of the federal budget when LBJ left office to 40 percent of the budget by the time Nixon left in 1974. While Nixon would criticize and attempt to reform welfare, he nonetheless approved
massive increases in funding for other Great Society programs such as the Model Cities program and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Some of the changes in spending policies that Nixon supported, such as automatic cost-of-living increases for Social Security recipients and other entitlement programs, contributed to runaway spending trends in successive decades. Federal spending for the arts, which went mostly to cultural elites who hated Nixon, quadrupled. Economist Herbert Stein, who served on Nixon’s Council of Economic Advisers, summed up this dubious record: “The administration that was against expanding the budget expanded it greatly; the administration that was determined to fight inflation ended by having a large amount of it.”

The explosion in spending was matched by an equally dramatic explosion in federal regulation-from an administration that regarded itself as pro-business. The number of pages in the Federal Register (the roster of federal rules and regulations) grew only 19 percent under Johnson, but a staggering 121 percent under Nixon. In civil rights, Nixon expanded the regime of “affirmative action” racial quotas and set-asides far beyond what Johnson had done. In other words, Nixon consolidated the administrative state of the Great Society in much the same way that President Eisenhower (for whom Nixon served as Vice President) consolidated the New Deal. Ronald Reagan would run and govern as much against the legacy of Nixon as he would the legacy of the Great Society, and it was a number of Nixon’s administrative creations that would cause Reagan the most difficulty during his White House years.

Yet at the same time Nixon deserves the credit for assembling the new political coalition of working class and ethnic voters who would later become known as “Reagan Democrats.” Nixon was the first Republican to win a majority of working class, Catholic, and labor union voters, as well as voters with only a grade school education. In the political sense Nixon played Moses to Reagan’s Joshua. This is Nixon’s greatest paradox.
 
Boulder and Colorado Springs tend to cancel each other out.

As do Denver and Denver suburbs. Denver is very solidly Democratic. Congressional district 1 (which has coincided with the city limits of Denver as long as I can remember) last elected a Republican in 1968. Denver suburbs are somewhat swingy, but usually lean Republican.
 
I think the confusion stems from your use of the word "sitting" when talking about Obama. I also read that as referring to a "sitting president"--i.e., the incumbent. I see now that you meant where he is sitting in the polls.
Yes, that's what I thought he was talking about.
 
I agree except I'd argue Nixon was still far slimier than Romney. Romney reminds me more of the second coming of Warren Harding. :(

I think what David Brooks has been saying lately is pretty accurate:

It's not that Romney's a bad guy. He's a guy play-acting as something he's not. It makes for an incoherent candidate.

Brooks says:

Personally, I think he’s a kind, decent man who says stupid things because he is pretending to be something he is not — some sort of cartoonish government-hater. But it scarcely matters. He’s running a depressingly inept presidential campaign.
 
Oh? What do you posit is as bad or worse out of the Conservative movement in terms of behavior in the last 40 years, let alone 80?

Politicians opposing desegregation were pretty horrible, and that was within the last 80 years. The resistance to the Civil Rights movement in general was worse than the current Conservative movement.
 
I agree except I'd argue Nixon was still far slimier than Romney. Romney reminds me more of the second coming of Warren Harding. :(
Yeah but get this: If you look at Nixon's domestic accomplishments through the lens of GOPNutville2012, in addition to the fact that he tried to achieve comprehensive government healthcare, Nixon was a goddamn commie.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom