General Election Thread (no partisan sniping allowed!)

[Mike Corey]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_1993677.html

Note the 'correction' at the bottom of the article.

Got it. Thanks.

Sounds like PA is now up for grabs.

[Udaman]

Repeat after me...there is ZERO chance of Pennsylvania going to Romney. Zero. None. Nada. Will not happen. Same with Michigan (I basically feel the same way with Wisconsin and Nevada...but I won't actually say that).

Put it this way, if either Penn or Michigan go to Romney, then he crushes in this election (and that's not going to happen).

This comes down to Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, and New Hampshire. (maybe Florida, but I'm assuming that Florida will go to Romney...which certainly is not a gurantee).

If Obama wins Ohio...it's over.

If he loses Ohio, he needs Virginia and another.

If he loses Ohio and Virginia, he needs Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire.

If Florida goes to Obama, he wins by a lot. If either Pennsylvania or Michigan go to Romney, he wins by a lot. In terms of the latter, read the first thing I just wrote. WILL NOT HAPPEN!

[El_Diablo]

I have not seen these links posted here yet, but they are pretty interesting data sources regarding campaign finances. Together, they give a pretty comprehensive look at how each campaign is raising its money (and from whom) and how it is allocating its advertising.

Open Secrets (fundraising): http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php?ql3

Washington Post (media spending): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...aign-ads-2012/

[77devil]

I'd be interested to see whether Romney's spending has changed. His Campaign did not spend a single dollar for TV time in Pennsylvania (or Michigan) in September. Not a single Republican Pac bought a single ad in the state. Neither did the President nor his allied Superpacs.

Again, voters in Pa got some national advertising, but nothing local -- while both campaigns were spending millions in NC, Virginia, Wisconsin and, of course, Florida and Ohio.

If anybody can find a source that suggests either -- or both -- are now spending to buy TV time in the state, then I would rate that a good indication that the state was in play.

I agree that Pennsylvania going to Romney would be a good early indication that he's going to win ... just as Ohio or Virginia or North Carolina going to Obama means the race is realisically over.

Election night is going to be interesting -- the tossup states are all in the East and Midwest. Most of the western States (maybe excepting Colorado) are pretty set. Of course, some of those tossups may take a while to call, so maybe it won't be that early a night.

I live in the Philadelphia market and there has been no change in media buys that I've noticed which has been virtually nothing to date. Can't speak for the rest of the state, but if the Romney campaign is not challenging for the Philadelphia suburbs it's not going after PA. At this point it's a ground game, and I don't believe the GOP can or will attempt a media blitz down the stretch.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Last debate chat tonight, just pick a username, leave the password blank.
http://www.crazietalk.net/ourhouse/chat/

[Highlander]

Can anyone point me toward a good source of information on the Durham-area local and state candidates? In the past I have been able to find compiled candidate information - candidate resumes, platforms, stand on key issues - typically drafted by the candidate and printed by a local paper or non-partisan election site. I have not been able to find such a resource this election, perhaps it is too early even though early voting has started.

I am just emerging from a self-imposed political media embargo, and hoping to educate myself on some of the local candidates (e.g. county commissioners) before heading out to cast my early ballot.

Thanks!

http://ncvoterguide.org/

This one was linked a while back. I found it to be outstanding.

[dukestheheat]

It'll be very close but I do think the economy, by far, trumps other issues and Romney wins POTUS. If President Obama wins re-electon, based on that (ie, the economy) being by far the #1 issue as defined by voters, I will be surprised based on his record and performance to date with this matter. Regardless of who wins, however, that's the guy who is supposed to be up there!

Dth.

[throatybeard]

OK, I'm watching sports, but FB just exploded.

Did Romney actually say that Syria is Iran's only route to the sea?

I'm going to give Romney the benefit of the doubt and assume he didn't say anything that patently idiotic.

[sporthenry]

OK, I'm watching sports, but FB just exploded.

Did Romney actually say that Syria is Iran's only route to the sea?

I'm going to give Romney the benefit of the doubt and assume he didn't say anything that patently idiotic.

He did say that. You won the debate by not watching. Too much on the economy but yet again, another minor statement will become the new meme.

[Wander]

He did say that. You won the debate by not watching. Too much on the economy but yet again, another minor statement will become the new meme.

I bet the "new meme" statement is about bayonets and horses, not the Iran sea border.

[Mal]

He did say that. You won the debate by not watching. Too much on the economy but yet again, another minor statement will become the new meme.

I think it'll be "horses and bayonets," myself. Fits better with the Montgomery Burns image some have tried to pin on Romney.

But, yeah, asserting that a nation with a 2,500 mile oceanic coastline sees a country it doesn't even border as its ticket to the sea is fairly ridiculous, and I can't quite come up with any particularly charitable explanation for that kind of a flub.

[Mike Corey]

This was Obama's strongest debate and Romney's weakest. But there's a reason Romney agreed to do the foreign policy debate last: it's generally the least-watched.

Obama scored the one big rhetorical blow of the night with his zinger about horses and bayonets, but in the process, undressed what Obama wants voters to believe about Romney: that he's all numbers and no nuance.

My partisan take of this debate was that Obama won rather severely. Romney agreed with Obama more than he did with his own previous opinions.

But we'll see if it moves the polls one way or the other.

[JasonEvans]

CNN:
Obama: 48%
Romney: 40%
Undecided: 12%
(note- CNN's poll has a large GOP skew to it. CNN only asks if you watched the debate and does not attempt to correct to reflect a bit more about the voting electorate. In general, a higher percentage of Republicans watched the debate than exist in the general population)

CBS:
Obama: 53%
Romney: 23%
Tie: 24%

-Jason "looks like a decent win for Obama, perhaps even a large one. Not sure it makes much of a difference at this point though" Evans

[duke23]

I know everyone is going to want to discuss the debate, but I've mostly lost my patience with the debates at this point. Instead, I wanted to comment on the results of the DBR poll thus far, which are pretty shocking to me. 10 out of 23 people predict Romney will win? I don't understand this. We all agree it's nearly impossible for Romney to win without Ohio, and we all seem to hold Nate Silver's analysis in high regard, and Nate Silver gives Romney only a 29% chance to win Ohio.

Now I know Silver makes various adjustments and assumptions in his models, but in theory, right now we should ALL be predicting that Obama wins, given that there are no odds. Otherwise, I guess it means that either you believe something there is something systemically wrong with the polls and/or Silver's model that makes you believe they are overestimating Obama's vote share, or you think something will happen in the next 2 weeks that changes the fundamental status of the race.

Personally, I think we've become so saturated with this stuff and that there are so few actual undecideds, that the chances of the latter are slim to none. And as for the former, it's my humble opinion that the underpolling of cell phones is the biggest systemic polling issue out there, which would mean Obama's share is actually underestimated. Anyway, the thought process in my prediction was giving Obama every state where Silver gives him a >65% chance of winning, and splitting CO and VA one way or the other, which gives Obama either 290 or 293. I'm genuinely curious about people's thought processes in predicting a Romney win. I'm not saying it can't happen; in fact, it should happen 3 out of 10 times. I just don't understand the prediction of it happening.

[Wander]

Now I know Silver makes various adjustments and assumptions in his models, but in theory, right now we should ALL be predicting that Obama wins, given that there are no odds. Otherwise, I guess it means that either you believe something there is something systemically wrong with the polls and/or Silver's model that makes you believe they are overestimating Obama's vote share, or you think something will happen in the next 2 weeks that changes the fundamental status of the race.

Your March madness bracket must be really boring, huh?

[duke23]

Your March madness bracket must be really boring, huh?

Point taken, and I know it's somewhat in jest, but I would respond that most knowledgeable basketball fans tend to pick their tournament upsets not willy-nilly, but based on some belief why a certain 11 seed is underrated, or a certain 3 seed is overrated, or a particular team is a good or bad matchup for another team. That's essentially my question - why do these same knowledgeable political followers who predict a Romney victory believe he is underseeded, so to speak, in Ohio and other "battleground" states?

Then again, I still pick Duke to win the title basically every year (even I couldn't be that blind in 2007), so I suppose "because I'm a Romney supporter" is as good a reason as any other, it's just not as interesting

[Olympic Fan]

Take it for what it's worth, but the BBC just published a suvey of world opinion on the US Presidential race. The British Broadcasting poll found overwhelming support for President Obama vs. Governor Romney:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20008687

Some interesting results -- the one nation in the world where Romney rates ahead of Obama is Pakistan (maybe because Romney insisted that we should not violate Pakistani sovergnty to go after Ben Laden?). But that's not as strange in that Romney's highest percentage of support (but still well behind Obama) was in Kenya, which some right-wingers believe is Obama's native land. I guess they're jealous of a local boy who made good! ;-)

[gus]

I think it'll be "horses and bayonets," myself. Fits better with the Montgomery Burns image some have tried to pin on Romney.

But, yeah, asserting that a nation with a 2,500 mile oceanic coastline sees a country it doesn't even border as its ticket to the sea is fairly ridiculous, and I can't quite come up with any particularly charitable explanation for that kind of a flub.

He has made the same statement before (eg in the primary debates). I assume he's trying to refer to the Mediterranean Sea, but just comes out sounding ignorant of geography.

[sagegrouse]

Take it for what it's worth, but the BBC just published a suvey of world opinion on the US Presidential race. The British Broadcasting poll found overwhelming support for President Obama vs. Governor Romney:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20008687

Some interesting results -- the one nation in the world where Romney rates ahead of Obama is Pakistan (maybe because Romney insisted that we should not violate Pakistani sovergnty to go after Ben Laden?). But that's not as strange in that Romney's highest percentage of support (but still well behind Obama) was in Kenya, which some right-wingers believe is Obama's native land. I guess they're jealous of a local boy who made good! ;-)

FWIW we were in the Antipodes (oooohhh!!) for three-plus weeks before the 2008 election. New Zealand at the time was going through general elections, ultimately choosing to dump its long-time PM in favor of a new leader and coalition. The Kiwi press had more coverage on the U.S. election than the home-country vote. Wow! I thought. This is surpassingly strange, even if the U.S. election stories can be run at very little cost.

Kinda hard to stay beneath the world's radar if you are the U.S. of A., I thought.

sagegrouse

[bluebutton]

I'm genuinely curious about people's thought processes in predicting a Romney win. I'm not saying it can't happen; in fact, it should happen 3 out of 10 times. I just don't understand the prediction of it happening.

I've been thinking about this since I saw you posted it. And I have 2 thoughts, first is that the strength of the prediction may be weaker than you imagine. I'm pretty much a toss up about this and not voting in the poll. I could see it going either way, but if I were to vote in the poll maybe I would predict a Romney win.

The 2nd thought I have is summed up in Reynolds' (partisan) opinion piece: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...beral/1647825/

Basically, he suggests that if Romney wins, a big part of the phenomenon will be that Obama's 'inevitable win' slowly and then in a rushing "preference cascade" deteriorates as more and more people find that they aren't the only ones who aren't sure they want to vote for Obama.

So perhaps people predicting a Romney win feel they have observed or believe this is happening.