General Election Thread (no partisan sniping allowed!)

[Bob Green]

Upon more careful reading, and opening another link, in Virginia military and overseas voters can request their absentee ballots via email but no one can actually vote via email. The completed ballots must be returned via regular mail:

Q. Where do I send my voted ballot?
A. Your signed, witnessed and voted ballot must be sent by mail to the local voter registrar’s office whose address can be found in the instructions you received with your ballot. No voted ballots can be accepted electronically, by email or fax.

[Tom B.]

The RCP average is 4.0 -- but that includes the one outlier -- Rasmussen continues to show Romney at plus two.

Today's Rasmussen poll actually shows the race tied, both with and without leaners included. After showing a post-convention bounce for Obama, it's been orbiting within a point or two (either way) of a dead heat for a little while now.

[JasonEvans]

Congrats ya'll! I have been away from my computer for about 12 hours and this thread has descended to hell in a handbasket. I am temporarily locking the thread and will be issuing a number of infractions -- to people on both sides of the aisle. I am disgusted at several of the posts over the past few hours that are clearly blatant violations of the non-partisan rules of this thread.

I have had many folks complain to me about their perception of how the thread has been moderated. People, I am trying. Romney is losing, so there are bound to be stories and posts about how his campaign is faltering. Obama is hardly a president who has led us to great prosperity so there are bound to be stories and posts about his shortcomings. Each side has contacted me to say they feel the other side is being treated differently. I am sorry and am trying to give you guys as much leeway as possible.

Anyway. I will be cleaning some stuff up in the next few hours or tomorrow morning. For now, a lot of you need to look at what you posted and hang your head. You'll be hearing from me and I am not happy. You have taken something I worked at very, very hard and pooped on it. Shame on you.

-Jason

[JasonEvans]

Ok, numerous infractions have been handed out and I am going to reopen the thread.

I also deleted more than a dozen posts. It is a pity as some of them featured excellent retorts to the partisan comments made by others, but pruning the partisan stuff made the responses make no sense. Oh well.

Folks. It is not difficult to keep the rules here. Analysis and facts are what we want... not unfounded opinion that is based on personal emotions. If you have a question about a post, PM it to me before posting and I will get back to you quickly and let you know if it is ok.

Thanks for understand my little rant last night but I saw at least 4 posts that were clearly partisan over the course of a few hours and I wigged out. We have done so well for so long, I hated seeing us quickly descending into the muck.

-Jason

[OldPhiKap]

Best way to settle a partisan dispute:

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal...itics-of-3.php

(Need to get the "Yum, Beer" folks to give us a breakdown. My penchant for Sierra Nevada must make me an outlier of some sort).


Easing back to the horse race: Per NBC First Read, Obama leads Romney in all nine battleground states (although some within the margin of error), and cites a column which argues that Romney has about 10 days to get a game-changer before the money starts flowing to other races. I still think there are a lot of variables out there (Israel/Iran, Stock Market, terrorism, etc.) but it is hard for me to see the debates being that much of a game-changer absent a monumental flub by Obama. Mitt needs some help from the outside I think.

[devildeac]

Best way to settle a partisan dispute:

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal...itics-of-3.php

(Need to get the "Yum, Beer" folks to give us a breakdown. My penchant for Sierra Nevada must make me an outlier of some sort).


Easing back to the horse race: Per NBC First Read, Obama leads Romney in all nine battleground states (although some within the margin of error), and cites a column which argues that Romney has about 10 days to get a game-changer before the money starts flowing to other races. I still think there are a lot of variables out there (Israel/Iran, Stock Market, terrorism, etc.) but it is hard for me to see the debates being that much of a game-changer absent a monumental flub by Obama. Mitt needs some help from the outside I think.

I just reviewed the chart. One major problem: most of the beverages listed are not beers/ales.

Back to your regularly scheduled non-partisan election thread.

[Tom B.]

Easing back to the horse race: Per NBC First Read, Obama leads Romney in all nine battleground states (although some within the margin of error), and cites a column which argues that Romney has about 10 days to get a game-changer before the money starts flowing to other races. I still think there are a lot of variables out there (Israel/Iran, Stock Market, terrorism, etc.) but it is hard for me to see the debates being that much of a game-changer absent a monumental flub by Obama. Mitt needs some help from the outside I think.

Along those same lines, Obama is now favored in all of the swing states in Nate Silver's now-cast, including North Carolina. To be sure, Obama is only a slight favorite (55.3%), and Silver's November 6 projection still has Romney as a slight favorite in North Carolina (59.3%). But it's the first time I think I've seen North Carolina go any shade of blue in either of Silver's projections. Florida has gone back and forth between pink and blue a few times in both the now-cast and the Nov. 6 projection, and I think one or two other states have occasionaly switched (I seem to recall Colorado switching a couple of times). But not North Carolina.

[Mike Corey]

In agreeing with you that Romney needs a strong debate performance, I think I'll be looking for the following from him to gain the momentum for the final 40 days or so:

(1) Be detailed but engaging on economic policy - Acknowledge that Obama inherited a bad economy and at least stabilized it. But then hammer Obama on how in America, we expect more than mere stability in our president and in our economy. We want progress. Then hammer away on the details of what Romney will do in months 1 thru 3 to get our economy churning along. Not just, "I'm going to invest in education by reforming education," but "policy 1 will do this, and policy 2 will do this, etc." Convince America that you have more than an outline of action for improving our economy, and that Obama's money-throwing strategy is pedestrian by comparison.

(2) Be composed, succinct, amusing, professional

(3) Put Obama on the defensive.

[OldPhiKap]

In agreeing with you that Romney needs a strong debate performance, I think I'll be looking for the following from him to gain the momentum for the final 40 days or so:

(1) Be detailed but engaging on economic policy - Acknowledge that Obama inherited a bad economy and at least stabilized it. But then hammer Obama on how in America, we expect more than mere stability in our president and in our economy. We want progress. Then hammer away on the details of what Romney will do in months 1 thru 3 to get our economy churning along. Not just, "I'm going to invest in education by reforming education," but "policy 1 will do this, and policy 2 will do this, etc." Convince America that you have more than an outline of action for improving our economy, and that Obama's money-throwing strategy is pedestrian by comparison.

(2) Be composed, succinct, amusing, professional

(3) Put Obama on the defensive.

I would put his requirement in a less tangible form:

Make America like you, trust you, and want to have you in their living room for the next four years.

I think most folks have made up their minds on policies, and it is tough for Romney to argue policy because he is all over the map (he was touting his Massachussets universal coverage a day or two ago as evidence of his compassion, while bashing the federal program based on his model later in the day). If he wants to win, he needs conservatives, moderates, and non-politicos to feel comfortable giving him the reigns of power and to take a flier on change from the current administration. I really think the challenge he faces is more an emotional connection challenge than logical policy connection challenge.

[JasonEvans]

It is early and there is scant evidence, but we may have a case of "what goes up must come down" going on in some of the state polls.

A few new polls today seem to present some better news -- though not yet good news -- for Romney.

ARG has Obama up 2 in Virginia and 5 in New Hampshire. Those are closer margins than other recent polls. (RCP has Obama's average lead in Virginia at 3.9, and
New Hampshire at 3.0, but NBC had Obama + 7 recently).

But, much more significantly, Gravis Marketing and Morning Call have new polls in Michigan and Pennsylvania that find both those races as competitive. Gravis has Obama up just 4 points in Michigan (RCP has the Michigan average as Obama + 8.8) and MC puts Obama's Pennsylvania lead at 7 (RCP has the average lead there at Obama +8, but CBS had Obama up 12 a couple days ago). If the Obama camp is forced to expend money and time in those two states, it would be a major help to Romney.

Like I said, it is early and these are just a few small polls, but results like these may serve to stem some of the "Romney is dead in the water" talk and keep the GOP money from abandoning him, as many have speculated could happen after the first debate.

It is, of course, worth noting that Romney's situation has indeed gotten dire when we are citing polls that show Obama with a solid but not insurmountable lead as good news for Romney. Still, I suspect Mitt will take the good news wherever he can find it these days.

-Jason "we need to see a lore more evidence, but these could be signs of a move back toward Romney a bit" Evans

[Mike Corey]

While I agree wholeheartedly with you OPK, I'm afraid that he's been trying the latter for two years and he's just not going to be that lovable to many Americans. In light of the 47% video, I don't think it's even believable.

I think his attempts at reconciling where he says he cares about 100% of Americans turn people off more.

But I think he should embrace that and stop pretending to be something he's not. "Just be you. You is enough."

Were I his advisor, I'd say, "Look. Own up to the fact that you're not charismatic. Presidents aren't supposed to be likeable. They're supposed to be leaders. Decisionmakers. Policy wonks. Substance matters, style doesn't. You're all the former, Obama's all the latter.

Then give America substance. He's not going to win a popularity contest, ever. But damn it, the man knows how to thrive. He's done it at Bain, did it at the Olympics, done it in Massachusetts, and he'll do it for America. Obama can make a lot of people laugh and he can speak in platitudes about a plate-full of things, but in the process, he's stuck us with record-setting debt, unease in the Mideast, a fragile and slow economic recovery, and there's no hope for change with another four years of Obama.

You don't have to like the messenger if the message will get America churning again.

Anyway, that's what I'd tell Romney if I had his ear. But that's why I'm not in politics. haha

[rthomas]

Maybe I'm the only one, but I kinda liked the partisan sniping that we had in Jason's absence. It's fun to have some back and forth. Like discussions on evolution and climate change. Sorry, Jason and everyone.

Anyway, Romney, Fox news and several of Fox's pundits have been saying that all the polls (except Rasmussen) are wrong, skewed because the demographics used in the polls favor the democrats.

And Fox points to this site as one that has de-skewed the polls. All show Romney with a big lead - EXCEPT Fox News, interestingly.

http://www.unskewedpolls.com

UnSkewed Polling Data
Friday, September 28, 2012 12:17:58 PM

UnSkewed Avg. Romney +7.4
Fox News Obama +2
Reason/Rupe Romney +7
Reuters/Ipsos Romney +10
NBC News/WSJ Romney +7
Monmouth Univ. Romney +5
QStarNews Romney +11
NY Times/CBS News Romney +7
Democracy Corps Romney +8
Wash. Post/ABC News Romney +7
CNN/ORC Romney +8
IBD/CSM/TIPP Romney +9
ARG Romney +10

I can't see the polls being that screwed up demographically.

[Duvall]

You don't have to like the messenger if the message will get America churning again.

But if people don't like the messenger, don't they at least have to like the message? Is there any indication that the specifics Romney might offer would be any more popular than his personal appeal?

[Mike Corey]

Anyway, Romney, Fox news and several of Fox's pundits have been saying that all the polls (except Rasmussen) are wrong, skewed because the demographics used in the polls favor the democrats.

Their argument is essentially, "The polls are skewed because too many respondents prefer Obama."

[Mike Corey]

But if people don't like the messenger, don't they at least have to like the message? Is there any indication that the specifics Romney might offer would be any more popular than his personal appeal?

That's the crucial question, IMO. I think the GOP has been unwilling to pitch it, full-throated. I think that has to change, starting with this debate, and at least give it a shot.

Romney missed his chance to do this at the RNC. Since then, Obama's filled in the gaps and weaved tales about tax increases on the middle class, about Romney's plan being the same ol' plans that got America into trouble in the first place.

That may well be true, but Romney hasn't sold his actual plan yet, IMO. If he's got one, I think it's worth a shot. Propose something big, bold and specific.

He's got nothing left to lose, IMO.

[Dukeface88]

Their argument is essentially, "The polls are skewed because too many respondents prefer Obama."

To elaborate, the "unskewed" site claims that the polls are undersampling republicans and oversampling democrats and attempts to "correct" them. Pew actually addressed this very argument almost two months ago, long before this meme even got started, here. The short version is that party identification isn't something pollsters know beforehand, but is rather one of the things they are polling to try to find out. Additionally, in many cases voting preferences are driving party identification rather than the other way around - in other words, Obama isn't ahead in the polls because more people are identifying as democrats; rather, people are identifying themselves as democrats because they plan to vote for Obama. So while pollssters can (and do) correct for other demographics (i.e., percentage of women, percentage of hispanics, percentage of rural residents) they can't, and shouldn't, "correct" for party identification. Even Rassmussen weighs for party registration rather than identification (they aren't the same thing).

[Tom B.]

Anyway, Romney, Fox news and several of Fox's pundits have been saying that all the polls (except Rasmussen) are wrong, skewed because the demographics used in the polls favor the democrats.

And Fox points to this site as one that has de-skewed the polls. All show Romney with a big lead - EXCEPT Fox News, interestingly.

http://www.unskewedpolls.com

UnSkewed Polling Data
Friday, September 28, 2012 12:17:58 PM

UnSkewed Avg. Romney +7.4
Fox News Obama +2
Reason/Rupe Romney +7
Reuters/Ipsos Romney +10
NBC News/WSJ Romney +7
Monmouth Univ. Romney +5
QStarNews Romney +11
NY Times/CBS News Romney +7
Democracy Corps Romney +8
Wash. Post/ABC News Romney +7
CNN/ORC Romney +8
IBD/CSM/TIPP Romney +9
ARG Romney +10

I can't see the polls being that screwed up demographically.

Romeny could win, but if he wins by more than 7 points (as this seems to suggest he should), I'll eat my hat with a side of home fries and gravy. That means he'd get around 53-54% of the popular vote. No Republican presidential candidate has done that in 24 years, and the last guy to do it was riding the coattails of a popular Republican administration and was matched up against a weak Democratic opponent.

(All this talk about Romney's campaign being inept and the "worst ever" -- oh, how quickly we forget the bumbling, tentative, tone-deaf and optics-oblivious debacle that was the Dukakis campaign. Come to think of it, maybe both parties should just stop nominating guys from Massachusetts for a while.)

[fuse]

First, let me apologise to Jason Evans. Being a moderator is a tough job to volunteer for and I did not make it any easier with my post.
Bad judgment on my part.

For the rest of the participants in the thread, I apologise for violating the spirit of this thread. It was not my intent but clearly I made a mistake and I am willing to own up to it.

Sorry folks!

[Ping Lin]

That's the crucial question, IMO. I think the GOP has been unwilling to pitch it, full-throated. I think that has to change, starting with this debate, and at least give it a shot.

Romney missed his chance to do this at the RNC. Since then, Obama's filled in the gaps and weaved tales about tax increases on the middle class, about Romney's plan being the same ol' plans that got America into trouble in the first place.

That may well be true, but Romney hasn't sold his actual plan yet, IMO. If he's got one, I think it's worth a shot. Propose something big, bold and specific.

He's got nothing left to lose, IMO.

I'm assuming (yes, yes, you and me, etc.) that the reason Romney hasn't gone specific is twofold:

a) either his plan would be more-or-less identical to Bush's and widen the deficit, which would probably not fly with the electorate at large
b) either his plan would be like Bush's, except with enumerated and specific cuts to deductions/programs in order to lower the deficit, which would create a sizable lump of protest in the electorate at large

What can Romney do? It's a bit of a quandary. I'm not concern-trolling here, I'm finding it a difficult situation for any politician to get out of. And the above illustrates a reason why dealing with the deficit is such a challenge in the first place.

[A-Tex Devil]

I'm assuming (yes, yes, you and me, etc.) that the reason Romney hasn't gone specific is twofold:

a) either his plan would be more-or-less identical to Bush's and widen the deficit, which would probably not fly with the electorate at large
b) either his plan would be like Bush's, except with enumerated and specific cuts to deductions/programs in order to lower the deficit, which would create a sizable lump of protest in the electorate at large

What can Romney do? It's a bit of a quandary. I'm not concern-trolling here, I'm finding it a difficult situation for any politician to get out of. And the above illustrates a reason why dealing with the deficit is such a challenge in the first place.

That is what Clinton has been out on the circuit saying. The Romney/Ryan plan, as currently espoused, has an Underpants Gnomes problem. Step 1: "Cut Taxes and Spending!", Step 2: "???", Step 3: "Profit!"

Clinton is framing this as the 'Pubs won't say what Step 2 is until AFTER you elect them -- so what is so problematic about "Step 2" that they don't want to tell us? No more mortgage interest deduction or something like that? Or are they not sure yet?

If Romney can give specifics on how the initial increase in the deficit will eventually be reduced, that could go a long way, I think. Just not sure whether that will happen or not, or if it's too late.