General Election Thread (no partisan sniping allowed!)

[throatybeard]

Reading this thread makes me very glad I went to a baseball game instead of watching that grease fire in Denver.

[OldPhiKap]

We've gone over this ad nauseum since the primaries ended, but by not shifting back to the Romney that got elected in MA, and sticking to his guns as "primary" Romney, he put himself in a huge hole early.

Which makes the Ryan/Biden rumble even more interesting next week. Bare knuckles and starker contrasts.

[JasonEvans]

Reading this thread makes me very glad I went to a baseball game instead of watching that grease fire in Denver.

Throaty, while you were at the game, did you happen to see Jim Lehrer's brain? I am sure it was somewhere last night but it sure as heck wasn't in Colorado.

-Jason "no matter who you back, I think everyone can agree that was the worst moderator performance in history" Evans

[Dev11]

Throaty, while you were at the game, did you happen to see Jim Lehrer's brain? I am sure it was somewhere last night but it sure as heck wasn't in Colorado.

-Jason "no matter who you back, I think everyone can agree that was the worst moderator performance in history" Evans

A few local breweries were all gearing up for the arrival of the political types, trying to get candidates to show up or just acknowledge them. It would appear that Mr. Lehrer was taking advantage.

[Duvall]

-Jason "no matter who you back, I think everyone can agree that was the worst moderator performance in history" Evans

The worst moderator performance in history *so far*.

(Crowley is coming.)

[Olympic Fan]

While it's too early to assess how Romney's performance Wednesday night will impact the race, there was a curious movement of Nate Silver's site today.

Romney gained slightly in the nowcast, but lost ground in the forecast (Obama's winning chances improved from 84.7 to 86.1 percent).

Again, I'm sure the fallout of the debate will change things in the next couple of days, but it's still an interesting development.

One other interesting thing -- The Obama campaign already has a new ad up that essentially accuses Romney of lying about the impact of his economic campaign. Now, that's just partisan rhetoric and whether you want to agree with it or not, the debate over the point the ad makes is beyond the subject of this thread.

However, what I do think is significant was the list of states where the ad is appearing already -- it includes most of the tossup states, including Ohio, Floirda and Virginia ... but (according to the site where I found it) does not include North Carolina. Even though the polls show Obama very competitive (and even leading) in this state, I'm surprised to see that his first counter-debate ad is not slated for telecast in NC.

[sporthenry]

How can you not know? They are so different in what they will do and their vision of America that it is hard to imagine how anyone could be on the fence. You are talking about two entirely different futures for the country and fates for most of the population.

God bless the child whats got his own

Well I think many want to see Romney with an actual plan for the economy as opposed to just, Obama has failed us. Additionally, after last night, Romney fully entrenched himself pretty close to the middle as well, saying he agreed with regulations on Wall Street among other things. Yes, we get lost in the specifics and there is a distinct difference between the two but we often magnify this difference. Most political compasses have Romney/Obama closer together than any other world leaders and after last night, it would appear they got closer. This is hardly like the recent election in France where there existed two distinct paths for the future and many outsiders view our elections as a formality b/c of how close the Presidential nominees must be. Perhaps it is as some theorists put it that we have a 1 party system masquerading as a 2 party system. This could be good or bad because either we are on the same page and getting closer to a better government or with no real dichotomy in our political system, we have no reconciliation to fixing our system.

But overall, I can certainly see how some are on the fence. You have studies which cite there may be as high as 23% who align with the Libertarian view (fiscally conservative/socially liberal) and 41% of ticket splitters have these views. The numbers probably don't matter as much as there are people out there with those views.

And on a personal level, I was entrenched in Obama's camp mainly because I didn't see an actual alternative, but after last night, my interest was piqued. I doubt I'll vote Romney but I'll at least listen to him and see how Obama responds to last nights debate.

[OldPhiKap]

Throaty, while you were at the game, did you happen to see Jim Lehrer's brain? I am sure it was somewhere last night but it sure as heck wasn't in Colorado.

-Jason "no matter who you back, I think everyone can agree that was the worst moderator performance in history" Evans

I guess my view of the debate was different than most folks, and so it is probably no surprise that I see this differently too.

Lehrer gave them an open-ended question, and then let the candidates talk back and forth in an organic discussion. While he did not keep to strict times, as a practical matter (1) the first half of them were on the economy anyway; and (2) if the two candidates want to talk about something else, let them run. I enjoyed the fact that he was a non-factor; I really dislike debates where the questioners ask loaded questions or gotcha questions. He sought to elicit differences between the candidates (as he stated in his opening remarks) and I thought he did a fair job of teasing that out.

The bottom line is that both candidates got roughly the same amount of time and usually stayed within gunshot of the 2 minute limit. No one could contend that it was moderated unfairly or partially, which at the end of the day is the measuring stick.

[rthomas]

I almost turned off the debate after the first 30 minutes simply because it was so boring to hear the back and forth about basically one topic - knowing that they would never get to the topics that I am really interested in - environment, energy, climate change.

But to me, what Romney did really well is portray himself as someone who could work with both sides of the aisle when he talked about the things that he got done in Mass. This of course in stark contrast of Obama who has had an extremely hard time working with congress. (Of course, when the Republicans say on Obama's first day in office that they will do everything to ensure that Obama would be a 1-term president...)

Obama, on the other hand, reminded me of a student showing up for an major final exam but hadn't studied and was going to try to wing it. Even his closing argument of "Vote for me." was weak. Who ends their closing argument saying, "Vote for me."

[CameronBornAndBred]

It's possible to agree with portions of each's vision, and disagree with portions of each's vision.

That sounds like a recipe for governmental success. Off with your head!

[dukestheheat]

I'm expecting Romney to seize a small lead in Florida, Virginia, North Carolina and edge closer in the other battleground states. Ohio may be back within the 5-point range, having flirted with double digits for a few weeks.

If Romney can hold those figures through the next major news event, he's got a chance to give himself a great chance at winning.

We'll be interesting to see how both campaigns market the debate. If I'm Obama, for example, I'm finding clips of Romney talking about how he is going to fold the Department of Education into another department, and splicing it against his assertion that he has no plans to cut education, for example. And if I'm Romney, I'm putting together a highlight reel from his performance, and riding the high and staying on offense.

Obama was truly the ideal candidate in 2008 and people were (rightfully so) 110% ready for change; keep in mind that with the public fervor for change at a high mark back then coupled with the ideal candidate, Obama only won North Carolina by about 14,000 votes if I recall it correctly. Debates or no debates, with our 5th highest unemployment I see Romney winning this state.

Dth

[Mike Corey]

In Obama's favor, I suspect, with regards to North Carolina is an increasingly favorable shift in population--displaced Midwesterners and New Englanders, for example--that is more inclined to vote for a Democrat than a Republican.

North Carolina is far from being a blue state, but it's demographics and voting patterns will be increasingly blue in the years to come.

[-jk]

Given demographic shifts, can't that be said of almost any state these days?

-jk

[throatybeard]

Given demographic shifts, can't that be said of almost any state these days?

-jk

The super red states in the plains are probably getting even redder as younger people desert them for the cities.

[-jk]

The super red states in the plains are probably getting even redder as younger people desert them for the cities.

I was figuring ag states are picking up Hispanic farm workers, with a slow migration south to north. (NC has a significant Hispanic population now.) I could be misremembering, but I thought more than half were legal, and even if they're not, their kids will be and voting in a few years. Finally - perhaps outside of Cubans in Florida - I think Hispanics are mostly voting democratic. Hence my assertion that demographic shifts are primarily blue.

Is the outflow of youth from red states greater than the inflow of Hispanic migrants? No idea - I'm no expert; this is just my hunch. I'll leave it to the pros.

-jk

[Mike Corey]

Given demographic shifts, can't that be said of almost any state these days?

-jk

Respectfully, no, I don't believe so.

North Carolina has had a unique surge of immigrants from Ohio, M*chigan, and other states; it has a very high number of students and tech-related imports from other states; etc., etc. This is not true of most states.

More states are becoming redder. The South has but one state with a Democratic-controlled legislature (Arkansas), and the Koch brothers are working very hard to change that. Many of the plains states have Romney up 20, 30 points.

[Bluedog]

In Obama's favor, I suspect, with regards to North Carolina is an increasingly favorable shift in population--displaced Midwesterners and New Englanders, for example--that is more inclined to vote for a Democrat than a Republican.

North Carolina is far from being a blue state, but it's demographics and voting patterns will be increasingly blue in the years to come.

Given demographic shifts, can't that be said of almost any state these days?

-jk

Respectfully, no, I don't believe so.

North Carolina has had a unique surge of immigrants from Ohio, M*chigan, and other states; it has a very high number of students and tech-related imports from other states; etc., etc. This is not true of most states.

More states are becoming redder. The South has but one state with a Democratic-controlled legislature (Arkansas), and the Koch brothers are working very hard to change that. Many of the plains states have Romney up 20, 30 points.

Luckily, Nate Silver has already done this analysis for us (although only in comparison to 2008, so perhaps not showing longer-term trends):
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...-be-like-2008/

Only 14 states have shifted from 2008 to the current polls towards Obama. Obviously, this is on a candidate-by-candidate/yearly basis and this race appears to be closer nationwide than 2008 (GOP +1.8%), but clearly there are some states that are becoming redder.

These states have turned at least 3.5% "redder" since 2008 based on current polling:
1. Utah +10.9% (exaggerated this time around due to large Mormon population)
2. Wisconsin +6.3% (Paul Ryan effect)
3. Nevada +6.2% (again, perhaps skewed slightly due to large Mormon population)
4. Connecticut +5.9% (but still reliably Democratic)
5. Michigan +5.6%
6. Idaho +5.6%
7. Mississippi +5.5%
8. Indiana +4.5%
9. Hawaii +5.1% (likely not as excited about Obama second time around being from state)
10. Missouri +4.3%
11. Massachusetts +4.3% (Romney-effect)
12. Colorado +4.1%
13. Kansas +4.0%
14. South Dakota +3.9%
15. Montana +3.7%
16. Iowa +3.7%
17. Georgia +3.7%

And states that have become at least 3.5% more "blue" since 2008:
1. Alaska +4.8% (no Palin)

Obviously, these shifts cannot be analyzed in a vacuum; what is interesting is the particular states that have shifted a bit more than one would expect than the nation at large (which shows higher support numbers for Romney at this point in time than for McCain during the 2008 election; GOP +1.8%). Ignoring the states that are unique to this election (e.g. candidate from state, etc.), the states that have shifted the most towards the GOP include one New England state, two Midwest states, two Southern states, and seven plain/mountain states (I'm counting MO as "plain" instead of Midwest). It seems to me like the states between the Midwest and west coast are generally becoming more Republican over time, while perhaps ones bordering New England/Midwest are becoming more Democratic over time (this four year period notwithstanding). Indiana seems like the big anomaly - no idea how Obama won it in 2008 and doesn't seem like it will go Democratic again for a while if things stay as they are.

[Udaman]

Well the job numbers could not have been any better, or come at a better time, for the Obama camp. Now that's what people will be talking about, and not the debates, and it will be really tough for Romney to spin these in a negative way. All he will really be able to say is "too little, too late" or "yes it's good, but not good enough." Obama will do what he should have done in the debates and talk about how many months they have gone up now (and by how much).

Interesting to get people's take on Romney and the 47% and now basically just saying, "I was wrong. Never mind." This kind of seems like what Aiken did with the rape comment, when he said he misspoke and was sorry. I don't want to get partisan here...but just wondering how effective it will be. It's almost like by him doing this, he's hoping that if it comes up during the next debates he can say, "Look, I already apologized for that. I was wrong. I don't feel that way. Let's talk about the important issues." I guess it's clever...just not sure how it will work out in the end.

[gus]

Meanwhile, in news I'm sure the president wishes has been released before the debate, unemployment has dropped below 8% for the first time since he came into office.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/06/bu...8.html?_r=1&hp

Will the Obama campaign be able to use this to blunt the narrative the media has built around the debate?





(Probably not. Political facts and the public seem to sit at different lunch tables in the cafeteria. )

[gus]

... This kind of seems like what Aiken Akin did with the rape comment,...

Why does everyone think this is American Idol!??