Contributors

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

The Final Pivot

Mitt Romney took his last chance to pivot to the center before a national audience and completely embraced it. No longer the saber rattler, Romney is now on board with the withdrawal from Afghanistan and diplomatic solutions with Iran. There were no attacks on the president's handling of Libya and a whole lot of head nodding in agreement with the president. In fact, dare I say it, Romney seemed quite dovish compared to the president. But that's all part of the plan.

Romney knows that in order to win he needs more women to vote for him. He's closed the gap somewhat but it's still not enough. He also knows that the neocons aren't popular at all in the country (even with many on the right) so it's buh-bye to the tough guy. It's truly amazing to me what this man will say to become president. What exactly does he stand for? Who is he? After last night, he's clearly someone who is a novice on the world stage.

Many pundits (including myself) thought that last night's debate wouldn't matter. I think I may be wrong. Romney played prevent defense because he wants to maintain his "within in striking distance" of getting Ohio. But as any football fan knows, prevent defense prevents you from winning the game. He looked weak last night and too conciliatory to the president. I suspect that deep down many folks on the right are not happy at all about voting for this guy. We may actually see some loss for Romney at the polls with this debate. People like their presidents to look strong.

So, now we head to the final two weeks of the campaign with the president still holding an electoral edge. Obviously, it's going to come down to turnout but at this point, I predict a 281-244 victory for the president (popular vote 50-48) with Virginia votes still being counted in January. Of course, this could change:) Regarding Congress, the Democrats will net 15 seats in the House and they will pick up one seat in the Senate making it 54-46. Essentially, we will basically be right where we are at now.

9 comments:

John H said...

One thing we can infer from both the strategies and the demeanors adopted by Romney and Obama last might: the candidates’ pollsters are telling them the same thing. Romney is winning.

Obama was like a fighter who comes out for the last round having been told by his corner, “You can’t win on points. You have to go for a knockout.” Romney was like a fighter who has been told, “You’re winning the fight. Just don’t walk into a lucky punch.” This is significant because the best polling, in general, is the polling done by campaigns. They spend a lot of money, and they don’t pay for spin. They need to know what is really happening in the minds of voters so they can adjust their strategies and allocate their resources to best advantage. And after last night, I don’t think there is much doubt that the campaigns’ pollsters are giving their candidates the same message: Obama is in trouble.

Anonymous said...

The one in trouble is the average American. No matter who wins.

The pro gun control (R)
or
the war-mongering (D)

Can I get a real choice please?

As long as we are prognosticating, I say Obama wins the electoral college, but maybe not the popular vote.

Marx, your election predictions have been so far off in the past, I don't know why you even bother opening your mouth.

juris imprudent said...

Anon with a brutal 3 punch combination.

Mark Ward said...

Romney is winning. Obama is in trouble.

Where, exactly? Show me the electoral math on how he is in trouble and I'm willing to consider it. No doubt, it's closer than it was before the first debate but I need to see how the president is in more trouble than Mitt Romney to get to 270.

This is significant because the best polling, in general, is the polling done by campaigns.

Wrong.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-political-polls/2012/10/12/21408264-13de-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_story.html

Myth #1. A campaign’s internal polls are more accurate than public polls.

The message from both sides, when they’re slumping, is consistent: Campaign polls are better at assessing voters’ intentions than the polls produced by news organizations and universities.

But there is a central flaw in private polling, at least what we get to see of it: Most campaign surveys are presented with a heavy dose of spin. The goals are also different, with a premium on testing messages and anticipating the effects of strategic decisions, often with tenuous assumptions about “likely voters” that may prove wrong.

Nor are campaigns reliable interpreters. Testifying under oath in the trial of former presidential contender John Edwards, Harrison Hickman, Edwards’s onetime pollster, said that the campaign used public polls as “propaganda.” Even though he privately counseled that Edwards had almost no chance of winning the 2008 Iowa caucuses, he said he monitored all the polls and sent “the ones that were most favorable because [campaign aides] wanted to share them with our supporters.”

“Out of a big stack of acorns,” Hickman said, “I was trying to pick out a few good ones that they could pass along to other people, you know, to keep them working.”

Election analysis should look at the big picture, not a few acorns.


I think Obama's aggressiveness in the last two debates are perhaps an over compensation for his first debate performance. In many ways, your analysis of where the race is now could also be applicable to the strategy that each candidate took before the first debate. Romney was losing...badly...and had to go for the knockout whereas Obama was winning and laid back. How did that work out for him?

Mark Ward said...

Marx, your election predictions have been so far off in the past, I don't know why you even bother opening your mouth.

Well, let's see...I was wrong about Edwards winning Iowa and I was wrong about the House in 2010. I was right about the president winning in 2008 (by a lot) and exactly right about the Senate in 2010. Far off, how exactly?

I actually appreciate your comment, though, and have broken my rule about responding to anons because you've adopted a stance in regards to the president that I think is a fair criticism: he is a war monger. I don't agree, obviously, but I think you make a good point that is illustrative of a larger, political issue and that's the future of the GOP.

It's not the chickenhawk, neo-cons that are going to be ruling the roost in the future. It's the libertarian pacifists. Many of the young conservatives I encounter on a daily basis are sick and tired of war. They don't want US troops in most of the countries they are currently in and want the defense budget gutted. Add in the fact that they don't give a shit about abortion or gay marriage and want pot legalized and I'd say that makes things very interesting for the Right and gives us a signal as to what the future holds for that party...a whole lot of change.

Don said...

http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2008/01/new-hampshire-predictions.html

Oops, wrong on that one too.

So have people gotten involved to make the country a better place over the last 4 years or have people wanted government handouts? They sure do look like they want their obamaphone.

juris imprudent said...

What he said. This is what an adult says M as opposed to the rantings of a fanboi.

Mark Ward said...

Do you mean the Obamaphone or the ObamaXPhone?:)

What I find interesting about the pointing out of where I've been wrong is nary a mention of when I have been right.

http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2010/11/election-day.html

The Senate will hold for the Democrats at 53-47.

No props at all for that one?

Anonymous said...

Wait. The young conservatives you (invented) meet on a daily basis? They want what? Less war and more tolerance?

But I thought you just said a few days ago that the old white guy party was a demographic black hole?

What about that graphic you claimed applied to all conservatives? Guns, Confederate flags, etc...

How can these two things be reconciled?

And B to the W, you don't have to respond to this anon posting. There is no point in having a dialogue with you, since you can be proved wrong and keep right on thinking the same thing. Don't waste my time or yours.