Independents ♥ Romney?

posted at 8:41 am on October 10, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Christian Heinze at The Hill picks up on a months-long polling trend that I’ve noted for quite a while, but which has mostly escaped the media.  Mitt Romney has consistently and clearly led among independent voters for quite a while, although Heinze only looks at the most recent polls to make his point about the nature of the race:

Fueling his current polling surge, Mitt Romney’s numbers with indies are just getting remarkably good.

a. IBD/ITP poll released today: Romney 52% Obama 34%.

b. Pew poll, released yesterday: Romney 46% Obama 42%.

c. Politico/GW poll, released yesterday: Romney 51% Obama 35%.

d. CNN, released last week: Romney 49% Obama 41%.

e. National Journal, released October 3: Romney 49% Obama 41%.

Now having said that, Romney has done well this entire cycle with independents, but not enough to overcome turnout models that suggested much, much higher Democratic turnout.

This has been a consistent trend all during the summer and fall, and it leads to this question: if Romney’s doing so consistently well among independents, how could he be trailing?  After all, Barack Obama won in 2008 by seven points overall, and eight points among independents.  A double-digit shift in the gap among independents should be decisive.

Some argue, though, that these independents are in some significant part Republicans who aren’t affiliating themselves with the GOP.  That, however, doesn’t make much sense.  Democratic enthusiasm reached its zenith in 2008, and Republican enthusiasm its nadir.  That’s when one would expect to see disaffected Republicans identify as unaffiliated.  In this election, Republicans have the advantage in the enthusiasm gap — even before the presidential debate last week.  Chuck Todd reported on Sunday that the GOP had a double-digit overall enthusiasm advantage in the previous week’s NBC/Marist polls, with Democrats having big trouble getting its core constituencies excited.  Politico/GWU found the same in its Battleground poll last week, putting the Republican advantage at +13.

Clearly, the Democrats cant win a base turnout election under those conditions.  Republicans have the advantage (so far) among committed partisans on enthusiasm, and they’re also winning independents consistently and significantly in the same polls that show the race as a virtual dead heat.  That suggests that some of the assumptions built into the pollster models are still leaning too far to 2008, and that Romney is actually in better shape than those toplines suggest.

On the other hand, I think Jay Cost, Scott Rasmussen, and Sean Trende are solid in this analysis, too:

So where are we, four weeks out? Romney suddenly finds himself with a lead in the polls, making liberals panicked and conservatives jubilant — an interesting change of pace.

But I actually see more continuity than change here. And allow me to quote one pollster who has had a solid read on the true state of the race for months (he is also the only pollster who had an accurate read on Obama-McCain from the Lehman collapse onward, and the first to see the 2010 wipeout coming before anybody else). Scott Rasmussen:

We have reached the point in the campaign where media reports of some polls suggest wild, short-term swings in voter preferences. That doesn’t happen in the real world. A more realistic assessment shows that the race has remained stable and very close for months. Since last week’s debate, the numbers have shifted somewhat in Romney’s direction, but even that change has been fairly modest. Still, in a close race, a modest change can have a major impact. Over the past 100 days of tracking, Romney and Obama have been within two points of each other 72 times. Additionally, on 89 of those 100 days, the candidates have been within three points of each other.

This is why Sean Trende was right on the money yesterday when he pointed out that, absent various, fleeting news shocks, this race has had a tendency to settle into a dead heat, with both candidates right around 47 or 48 percent of the vote.

Another point where Trende was spot on: Team Obama is running a bandwagon campaign. In fact, it has been running such a thing since it won the Iowa Caucus all the way back in early 2008. The idea is to convince the country that Obama is a sure winner – so why not jump on board? Thus, the president and his team have tried to create news at the exact moment the race begins to settle back into a tie. That explains perfectly the timing of the attacks on Romney – Bain Capital, tax returns, and the “47 percent” comment – all meant to inflate Obama’s numbers artificially above the rough 47-47 tie we should be seeing.

I’ll add one caveat to that, though: that’s about what I figured would happen in the race (I put it more at 46/46 or 45/45), until the first debate.  That was always going to be the inflection point for an incumbent who couldn’t get above 45-47% in real terms, and even some of that possibly soft.  Could Romney make the case that he was an acceptable alternative to a mediocre-or-worse President?  Once he made that case — and Obama helped him enormously with his own disengaged and disinterested performance — the race would change in a fundamental way.

That seems to have happened, but I’m wondering if it hasn’t been happening all along with those unaffiliated voters that have consistently favored Romney.  We’ll see soon enough.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

LANDSLIDE

screwauger on October 10, 2012 at 8:43 AM

Nice wakin up to good news in the morning.

cheetah2 on October 10, 2012 at 8:45 AM

That means that one bad debate and they will switch to Obama. Never understood that.

I guess these debates are really important. I think that people hadn’t taken the time to get to know Romney and the first debate made it ok to vote for him.

But again…bad debate or not great and they might change their minds.

tomas on October 10, 2012 at 8:45 AM

I am amazed not at the movement direction of the polls after the debate. But the speed at which they’re changing is just mind-boggling.

No compromise.

No let up.

No taking it for granted.

I’m sending one last big donation today.

hawkdriver on October 10, 2012 at 8:45 AM

Independents ♥ Romney?

YES! I ♥ that headline.

Smart independents know that the best and only choice for our prosperity is Romney/Ryan. On the other hand, clueless, non-thinking sheep are for Obama.

bluegill on October 10, 2012 at 8:46 AM

I think that people hadn’t taken the time to get to know Romney and the first debate made it ok to vote for him.

tomas on October 10, 2012 at 8:45 AM

I don’t think people had the opportunity to get to know Romney. Only us political types follow the primaries, and the media pretty much embargoed all things Romney.

The first thing they couldn’t stop – and thus the first thing many people saw – was the debate.

And Romney killed it.

Washington Nearsider on October 10, 2012 at 8:49 AM

Christian Heinze at The Hill picks up on a months-long polling trend that I’ve noted for quite a while, but which has mostly escaped the media.

This is the thing Ed…

We know this has been going on for months – the polls have been ridiculously skewed and Romney has consistently blasted O’Butthead with Indies. Now two things are happening:

The pollsters have to start reflecting a more accurate representation of the true electorate, to preserve their own reputations, and

People (especially undecideds) start paying attention around September or so, crystallizing around the debates. If they’re undecided this late, they’re almost all going to Romney.

I’ve said this weeks ago & I’ll say it again – I don’t think this moron is winning more than 10 or 11 states, tops.

ICanSeeNovFromMyHouse on October 10, 2012 at 8:51 AM

Obama’s crew will throw it all at Mitt so it will get tougher but they just might jump the shark or maybe big bird already did!

tim c on October 10, 2012 at 8:53 AM

That suggests that some of the assumptions built into the pollster models are still leaning too far to 2008, and that Romney is actually in better shape than those toplines suggest.

Which is what we’ve been saying on here all along. Believe me, if I had any expectation that the electorate this year would resemble that of 2008, I’d be a lot more concerned about these polls(pre-debate). But with GOP voters enthused(and even more so AFTER the 1st debate), Dems depressed, and indies favoring Romney, there’s no reason to think he can’t easily win this thing. The only possible way Obama gets re-elected IMO is if O-I-H-O narrowly remains in his column and Romney can’t pick off additional states to make up the difference in EVs. It could happen, but I’m doubtful.

Doughboy on October 10, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Some argue, though, that these independents are in some significant part Republicans who aren’t affiliating themselves with the GOP. That, however, doesn’t make much sense.

Ed, you forgot to mention Ras’s party ID breakdown, which has shown more people identifying themselves as Republicans than Democrats. To me, that’s an indication that a good portion of the indies are disaffected Dems, not the other way around.

changer1701 on October 10, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Could Romney make the case that he was an acceptable alternative to a mediocre-or-worse President? Once he made that case — and Obama helped him enormously with his own disengaged and disinterested performance — the race would change in a fundamental way.

Disengaged and disinterested are good words but I’m still going with lazy. You can see it on the clips at the various rallies. Obama essentially has the same stump speech as 2008, has made no effort to defend the shortcomings of his record, and doesn’t really care about the “presidentin’” part of the job, just the perqs.

Happy Nomad on October 10, 2012 at 8:54 AM

Axelrod scoffed when he was asked to comment: “There are more dead voters than there are independents. And their hearts stopped for Barry.”

bayview on October 10, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Obama essentially has the same stump speech as 2008, has made no effort to defend the shortcomings of his record, and doesn’t really care about the “presidentin’” part of the job, just the perqs.

Happy Nomad on October 10, 2012 at 8:54 AM

Obama reminds me of a woman who wants a wedding but not a marriage.

Washington Nearsider on October 10, 2012 at 8:55 AM

do not let up. there is a reason that the Romneys/Ryans & the Obamas are spending all their time in Va.

Va is still up for grabs–I wish I could believe Suffolk’s poll that said Va is in the bag for R/R.

keep working.

kelley in virginia on October 10, 2012 at 8:55 AM

So, out of those 67 million people who watched the first debate, how many will tune into the second debate because they still haven’t made up their minds?

Dextrous on October 10, 2012 at 8:57 AM

Ed: oversampled polls and a SLAVISH WILLING NATIONAL MEDIA are the reason(s) wht it is considered “close”…

I think the Romnet margin of victory is going to surprise some people… the idiot LSM for starters…

Khun Joe on October 10, 2012 at 8:57 AM

One man’s opinion: THIS will be the election where the “polls” are revealed as a crock. No land lines, nobody wanting to talk to pollsters (would you?) combined with obvious sample bias and most pollsters will be dumped in with the rest of the biased MFM.

There is a rout on its way and the debate just accelerated it!

winston on October 10, 2012 at 8:57 AM

Note that the totals are less than 100%. I’m one of the 10%. Although folks here on HA love to jump from “doesn’t support Romney” to “supports Obama,” I’m still not voting for the R-man.

C’mon, Mitt! Throw me a bone. Say that you’ll at least FREEZE spending at today’s level.

Otherwise, I’m not voting.

Oh, and Cozmo, don’t forget to froth at the mouth before you post a response.

Wino on October 10, 2012 at 8:58 AM

Dextrous on October 10, 2012 at 8:57 AM

A whole bunch.

People always want to see a good train wreck. Or brawl.

cozmo on October 10, 2012 at 8:58 AM

Disengaged and disinterested are good words but I’m still going with lazy. (. . . )

Happy Nomad on October 10, 2012 at 8:54 AM

Unfortunately, “disinterested” is not used correctly here. It means “impartial,” not “showing a lack of interest.” This error has been showing up a lot lately.

Dextrous on October 10, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Otherwise, I’m not voting.

Oh, and Cozmo, don’t forget to froth at the mouth before you post a response.

Wino on October 10, 2012 at 8:58 AM

Okay, wipe the drool from your face before you crack open another Thunderbird.

You would never vote for the guy who wants to take away your 0bamaphone.

cozmo on October 10, 2012 at 9:00 AM

the 2d Pres debate will have more Romney viewers because of Romney’s big win at the 1st debate.

the VP debate will have virtually no Dem viewers because they can’t stand the trouncing smart Joe will receive at hands of Paul Ryan

kelley in virginia on October 10, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Team Obama is running a bandwagon campaign. In fact, it has been running such a thing since it won the Iowa Caucus all the way back in early 2008. The idea is to convince the country that Obama is a sure winner – so why not jump on board?

I’ve been saying this for a while. I think there are a good number of voters who like to vote “for a winner” just to be on the winning side. If either Obama or Romney has a clear lead nearer the election, many of will flock over to the expected “winner”.

The only proof I have of this is anecdotal over the course of about 25 years.

GadsdenRattlers on October 10, 2012 at 9:02 AM

Wino on October 10, 2012 at 8:58 AM

so in your vote for Obama, do you expect to get a hand-out? You’ll get no bone from us unless you are capable of taking it. Cold. Dead. Hands.

screwauger on October 10, 2012 at 9:02 AM

He who wins the independents by 3 points or more is going to win the elections…
Moreover it is very clear that the democrat base is much less energized in 2012 than in 2008. Even the most biased liberal media polls are indicating this and we do not even need a poll to tell us this fact, just look around and you can easily notice how much less energized the democrat base in 2012 compared to 2008.
So in summary, absolutley not, there is no way that Obama is going to win the elections by losing the independents…

mnjg on October 10, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Some argue, though, that these independents are in some significant part Republicans who aren’t affiliating themselves with the GOP. That, however, doesn’t make much sense. Democratic enthusiasm reached its zenith in 2008, and Republican enthusiasm its nadir. That’s when one would expect to see disaffected Republicans identify as unaffiliated.

Once again someone conflates “Conservative” with “Republican.” Not all Conservatives are Republican just as all Republicans are not Conservative.

Mitoch55 on October 10, 2012 at 9:03 AM

“Can Democrats win a base-turnout election?”

Not yet, but if Republicans, including Mitt Romney, don’t stop mass non-White immigration, inevitably in future Democrats will win base turnout elections without needing to care what Republicans think, or even independents.

The trend to a massively non-White and thus inevitably Democratic and left-wing America is not natural; it is produced by laws and by political action, and it can only be stopped and reversed by laws and by political action.

If Mitt Romney does nothing about this, then his election will have been pointless, and every reform he promotes will in time be undone by a continuous stream of radical leftists like Obama and much worse, elected by a permanent anti-White majority.

David Blue on October 10, 2012 at 9:04 AM

I love how the left can’t get off their insistence that Obama, “was off that night”. No, he wasn’t. THAT was Obama. Your basic, average, “C” student, emotionally suited to a career as a mail carrier. He was never capable of the position he was GIVEN.

BettyRuth on October 10, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Once again someone conflates “Conservative” with “Republican.” Not all Conservatives are Republican just as all Republicans are not Conservative

+100 This is me to a tee. I’ve never identified myself as Republican, always Conservative. This “Independant” is voting for Romney

GadsdenRattlers on October 10, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Dadgum. Trolls, already? Axledrod must be paying overtime.

kingsjester on October 10, 2012 at 9:10 AM

I’m still not voting for the R-man.

Wino on October 10, 2012 at 8:58 AM

I do not understand this at all. We have a committed socialist in the White House who has appointed fellow radicals to fill Cabinet and other positions. The EPA has shown their cards pushing “environmentl justice” and “sustainability” … all code words for socialism.

Obama is slowly taking over the US bit by bit and people won’t vote for Romney?

It’s critical not only to take Obama out … but to clean out the crooks, radicals and socialists he’s imbedded throughout the federal government.

Anyone who’s still waiting for some reason to vote for Romney is dangerously uninformed.

darwin on October 10, 2012 at 9:12 AM

I think the Romnet margin of victory is going to surprise some people… the idiot LSM for starters…

Khun Joe on October 10, 2012 at 8:57 AM

There is a rout on its way and the debate just accelerated it!

winston on October 10, 2012 at 8:57 AM

I love the way it looks right now as much as anyone.

But, it ain’t over yet folks.

Stay focused. Volunteer. Make calls. Vote and make sure others do to.

Don’t get complacent. The clock doesn’t read 00:00 yet.

BacaDog on October 10, 2012 at 9:14 AM

Gloating in election after election that though the demographic odds are worse than in the election before, they are not yet hopeless for one more election, this one, and doing nothing to halt and reverse the politically produced demographic trend, is insane.

It is like standing next to the holes in a hulled ship way out at sea, doing nothing to plug the leaks as the water rushes in, and gloating each few minutes that the ship has not sunk yet. No it has not, yet, but every period of inaction makes the odds worse than when you do turn to the necessary action it will be too late.

And if you think you can keep fudging the issue forever you are wrong. No matter how many times you say “we’ve never sunk before, so we never will in future,” either you plug the leaks and bail, or you will sink.

David Blue on October 10, 2012 at 9:15 AM

It’s still too early for Romney to go into a prevent defense strategy.

Wigglesworth on October 10, 2012 at 9:16 AM

Wino on October 10, 2012 at 8:58 AM

You can’t be serious.

Cleombrotus on October 10, 2012 at 9:17 AM

I love how the left can’t get off their insistence that Obama, “was off that night”.

BettyRuth on October 10, 2012 at 9:06 AM

They are right. Obama clearly took the night off.

Happy Nomad on October 10, 2012 at 9:18 AM

I am Cautiously Optimistic.

Is that the same as eeyorish?

tru2tx on October 10, 2012 at 9:18 AM

I do not understand this at all.

darwin on October 10, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Because the the wino is lying. Its what leftys do.

cozmo on October 10, 2012 at 9:18 AM

It’s still too early for Romney to go into a prevent defense strategy.

Wigglesworth on October 10, 2012 at 9:16 AM

True but it’s becoming clear that Romney has the momentum and short of a major gaffe the opportunities for Obama to regain it are few. Hint- You do not regain momentum by constantly talking about Big Bird.

Happy Nomad on October 10, 2012 at 9:20 AM

David Blue on October 10, 2012 at 9:04 AM

Sobering.

Cleombrotus on October 10, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Sweep the leg!

You have a problem with that?

fortcoins on October 10, 2012 at 9:21 AM

The only way Obama can win at this point is electorally. He is simply not going to win the popular vote.

If that should happen (IMO unlikely), Armageddon will ensue.

Bat Chain Puller on October 10, 2012 at 9:21 AM

We should all be doing everything we can to drive a stske through the zombie on Nov. 6, but I’ve always failed to see how Obama can win when he’s facing an energized opposition, a depressed base, and independents solidly against him. Those numbers just don’t add up. Who exactly is he counting on to vote for him?

Progressive Heretic on October 10, 2012 at 9:22 AM

That suggests that some of the assumptions built into the pollster models are still leaning too far to 2008, and that Romney is actually in better shape than those toplines suggest.

This is why I keep kvetching about them not using the 2010 turn out models. If they were, we would see that Romney has a commanding lead.

dogsoldier on October 10, 2012 at 9:23 AM

It’s still too early for Romney to go into a prevent defense strategy.

Wigglesworth on October 10, 2012 at 9:16 AM

I agree and I believe so does Mitt himself. The fact that he personally took a direct shot at Obama over the Big Bird ad yesterday is a good sign I believe. McCain never did this. Sure Palin did and she did it frequently, but sometimes you need to take the reigns yourself for people to believe you are a true leader. Looking back on 2008, we should have realized that voting for VP wasn’t a good strategy.

MobileVideoEngineer on October 10, 2012 at 9:26 AM

It’s still too early for Romney to go into a prevent defense strategy.

Wigglesworth on October 10, 2012 at 9:16 AM

“The only thing the prevent defense does is prevent you from winning.”
John Madden

eyedoc on October 10, 2012 at 9:28 AM

I think Mitt is actually following Reagan’s example. He’s not just speaking to the “Fiscal Cons”, the Independents, or the Moderates. he’s speaking to Americans.

kingsjester on October 10, 2012 at 9:30 AM

do not let up. there is a reason that the Romneys/Ryans & the Obamas are spending all their time in Va.

Va is still up for grabs–I wish I could believe Suffolk’s poll that said Va is in the bag for R/R.

keep working.

kelley in virginia on October 10, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Yes, and encourage people to VOTE EARLY:

https://www.facebook.com/AmericanCrossroads/app_275845599182112

bluegill on October 10, 2012 at 9:32 AM

I won’t read too much into it, but the number of pro-Obozo ads has slightly decreased… and the ‘rats are ramping up their ads… the latest one are outright lies, against Josh Mandel.

And Obozo has revived his ’08 tactic of rock/pop band+rally+plus buses to take university students to the polls… taking advantage of Ohio’s absurd early voting period.

Ohio is far from being in Obozo’s pocket.

CPT. Charles on October 10, 2012 at 9:34 AM

I have been saying for several weeks here that I am worried about the big three – FL, VA, and OH. I have never believed Obama was inevitable because of topics like the onew above.

He is also behind with Catholics and the gender gap is more towards ROmney as well. If Suffolk is correct – the race is over. Now we just need to drag every GOP voter to the polls.

Zomcon JEM on October 10, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Imagine if a kook like Rick Samtorum was the nominee. Where would these numbers be?

Obama second term for sure..

rickyricardo on October 10, 2012 at 9:39 AM

I guess these debates are really important.

Ask Rick Perry ’bout that.

I think that people hadn’t taken the time to get to know Romney and the first debate made it ok to vote for him.

Yup, most people – who didn’t tune into the convention – just saw the Obama-MSM character of Romney, not the real McCoy.

But again…bad debate or not great and they might change their minds.
tomas on October 10, 2012 at 8:45 AM

True, there is a certain percentage of airhead voters, but I suspect more are just looking to confirm what they’ve already taken away from that first debate.

whatcat on October 10, 2012 at 9:41 AM

FWIW, Obama does not even have a campaign event scheduled for today.

Right Mover on October 10, 2012 at 9:42 AM

It’s like nobody has adjusted to the climate that many conservatives prefer to call themselves “independents” because they dislike the GOP party machine and me-too Republicanism. I’m a CI.

I’m pretty convinced that “independent” is no longer synonymous with “middle” or “fence-sitter”.

It’s the Tea Party, Stupid.

Axeman on October 10, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Who exactly is he counting on to vote for him?

Progressive Heretic on October 10, 2012 at 9:22 AM

“Obamaphone!!!”

Right Mover on October 10, 2012 at 9:44 AM

I think Mitt is actually following Reagan’s example. He’s not just speaking to the “Fiscal Cons”, the Independents, or the Moderates. he’s speaking to Americans.
kingsjester on October 10, 2012 at 9:30 AM

This is where he has an advantage in that the Democrat base consists largely of a loose coalition of misc grievance-victim groups.

whatcat on October 10, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Ive been a poll watcher since 2008. I would be willing to bet that many of the idiots who showed up to vote for hopium-n-change, many of whom were voting for the very first time even though they were in their 30′s, will not be turning out again.

I volunteered to make phone calls tonight.

Naturally Curly on October 10, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Imagine if a kook like Rick Samtorum was the nominee. Where would these numbers be?

Obama second term for sure..

rickyricardo on October 10, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Primary season’s been over for six months now. Put your strawman away.

Right Mover on October 10, 2012 at 9:46 AM

rickyricardo on October 10, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Primary season’s been over for six months now. Put your strawman away.

Right Mover on October 10, 2012 at 9:46 AM

He can’t. Its all he has.

cozmo on October 10, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Who exactly is he counting on to vote for him?

Progressive Heretic on October 10, 2012 at 9:22 AM

Er…those Soros bought and paid for, “Secretares of State?”
Certainly the zombie vote.
Then there is the SEIU written nursing home vote.
Then the replicated inner-city vote,vote,vote,and again, vote.
Then the college genius under 25 vote.
There’s the porno lobby, the Sandra Fluke signature condom folks.
The New Black Panther led intimidation vote.
The GM,NEA,SEIU, etc vote.
Then there’s the entire media vote.
The Hollywood vote (except for Clint and his friends)
Then….

Don L on October 10, 2012 at 9:47 AM

If you guys are really believing that 15% of the electoral population changed their opinion from a government based system to a private based system thanks to one debate in which Romney basically reversed every position he’s held in the campaign thus far, you have a very, very rude awakening coming.

Rainsford on October 10, 2012 at 1:26 AM

Del Dolemonte on October 10, 2012 at 9:48 AM

I’ve been saying this for a while. I think there are a good number of voters who like to vote “for a winner” just to be on the winning side. If either Obama or Romney has a clear lead nearer the election, many of will flock over to the expected “winner”.

The only proof I have of this is anecdotal over the course of about 25 years.

GadsdenRattlers on October 10, 2012 at 9:02 AM

And then there are the ones who will vote for some 3rd party candidate just so they can brag, “At least I didn’t vote for the guy” no matter who wins.

CJ on October 10, 2012 at 9:50 AM

Imagine if a kook like Rick Samtorum was the nominee. Where would these numbers be?

Obama second term for sure..

rickyricardo on October 10, 2012 at 9:39 AM

‘Splain, Please.

Del Dolemonte on October 10, 2012 at 9:50 AM

Sweep the leg!

You have a problem with that?

fortcoins on October 10, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Heh

Rio Linda Refugee on October 10, 2012 at 9:52 AM

I forgot the “FDR saved us, senior crowd vote.
The religious confused social justice (for Marx) vote.
The save Big Bird vote(yellow overlapped ribbons)
The naive “He’s a messiah ” vote.
The “he’s cool” vote.
The free lunch vote.
The anti-God vote.
The CAIR vote.
The “Illegal’s “R” us” vote.
The…

Don L on October 10, 2012 at 9:53 AM

I volunteered to make phone calls tonight.

Naturally Curly on October 10, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Thank you for this!

Yes, it’s too early to start celebrating. Who knows what the Obama campaign and his friends in the media will pull in the remaining few weeks. There will likely be more ups and downs before this thing is over.

No celebrations until the morning of November 7. I won’t be able to breathe easy until then.

bluegill on October 10, 2012 at 9:55 AM

that, absent various, fleeting news shocks, this race has had a tendency to settle into a dead heat, with both candidates right around 47 or 48 percent of the vote.

GAME OVER

kcd on October 10, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Wow, seeing lots of unrecognizable names on this thread. Axelrod must have called in the second string.

Flora Duh on October 10, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Anyone who’s still waiting for some reason to vote for Romney is dangerously uninformed.

darwin on October 10, 2012 at 9:12 AM

What has Romney ever said or done that makes you think he’ll be a FISCAL conservative? He has not pledged to do anything about federal overspending until 2016. He has said he’ll keep the “good parts” of Obamacare (please, show my ONE “good part”). His background is anything but a spending cutter.

Sorry. I won’t bite. I’m old enough to bypass the voting booth rather than pick the lesser of two evils.

PS. I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said about Obama, darwin. I just have heard NOTHING from the R2 group that says they’ll be materially different. Maybe I’m not the one who isn’t paying attention. Hatred seems to blind a lot of those who write HA replies.

(I hope you’re reading this, Cozmo. You’re the least-informed and most-hateful person I have seen here. I wish I knew you well enough to get a life insurance policy. I’m certain your early heart attack would do me well, financially.)

I’m still not voting for Romney. I definitely won’t vote for Obama, but Romney needs to say something… I don’t know… “conservative” to get my vote. I just haven’t seen it. He’s another McBushDole, from what I can see. I just have given up on the GOP, as they’ve given me nothing since Reagan, and they fought tooth and nail against him.

Wino on October 10, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Wow, seeing lots of unrecognizable names on this thread. Axelrod must have called in the second string.

Flora Duh on October 10, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Some are resurfacing after bashing other republican candidates during the primaries.

(I hope you’re reading this, Cozmo. You’re the least-informed and most-hateful person I have seen here. I wish I knew you well enough to get a life insurance policy. I’m certain your early heart attack would do me well, financially.)

Wino on October 10, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Bless your heart for your concern over my health little shad.

I’m doing just fine pretty good. And so is my family.

cozmo on October 10, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Wino, have another drink.

D-fusit on October 10, 2012 at 10:04 AM

LVRJ/SurveyUSA poll released today shows Obama +1 over Romney, 47/46, in Nevada.

“Right now, I think you have a jump ball in Nevada,” pollster Jay Leve said Tuesday. “And one of two scenarios will play out. One is that Romney will continue the momentum he has right now, and there’s every reason to think he will capture Nevada. … The second scenario is that Obama regains some footing and the race drifts slightly more Democratic, and there’s an opportunity for Obama to hold Nevada.”

Gotta love pollsters: “Romney may win. On the other hand, Obama might.” RCP calls it a toss-up state.

Romney has a strong ground game going in Nevada. The campaign has been overwhelmed by the number of Californians who, wanting to do more than send $$, have volunteered as foot-soldiers in Reno and Las Vegas. Word yesterday was the campaign was scrambling to secure more buses. Nevada’s 6 EC votes aren’t that much compared to Ohio, Virginia, and Florida, but could make a difference– and it would be nice to snatch it away from Harry Reid.

de rigueur on October 10, 2012 at 10:05 AM

I won’t bite. I’m old enough to bypass the voting booth rather than pick the lesser of two evils.
Wino on October 10, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Thats probably best

kcd on October 10, 2012 at 10:06 AM

I won’t bite…
Wino on October 10, 2012 at 10:00 AM

the hand that feeds me.

The truth.

D-fusit on October 10, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Wino on October 10, 2012 at 10:00 AM

I agree with your observations, but this old geezer recognized the wisdom of survival and fighting with the army you have.
R/R is it, like it or not.

I fear the aftermath,and what Romney won’t do that will only bring us back to this point again. (clean out the agencies for one thing.)Set limits on any future messiah for president types who loathe the constitution.
He won’t pass any abortion bill he just said. Does that mean Obamacare or Oromneycare will include it? As if the innocent life cares which party slaughters them at taxpayer expense.
He still hasn’t responded to the government’s attack on religion and conscience without which there can be no freedom in America.

The list is long and discouraging, but sanity must prevail and the emperor must be first displaced or the GOP will never be allowed to reform or wake up. Vote for Romney Ryan, fix the rest, if you can, after.

Don L on October 10, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Maybe Dems have a valid reason to go after the Big Bird connection. Leaked picture tells the story.

bloggless on October 10, 2012 at 10:12 AM

significant part Republicans who aren’t affiliating themselves with the GOP. That, however, doesn’t make much sense.

It makes sense to me. First, I am more conservative than the Republican polity: I vote Republican while holding my nose.
Second, it has a tiny affect of making the polls shift to the right when I say I will vote the Republican ticket.

Have you noticed that Ed makes grandiose statements? My favorite which he pushed most of this year, is that my generation, old people, would vote for the Democrats because of entitlements.

burt on October 10, 2012 at 10:15 AM

I don’t understand the obsession with polls. Case in point is the set presented in this post. All purport to measure essentially the same thing, yet they are widely divergent in their results.

I look at the election this way – why would an electorate who so resoundingly rejected Obama and his agenda in 2010, with no improvement in the economy since, decide it wants him for a second term in 2012? That just doesn’t make sense to me.

johnnybravo on October 10, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Because the the wino is lying. Its what leftys do.

cozmo on October 10, 2012 at 9:18 AM

I see cozmo is doing Obama’s work still. Reaching out and winning disaffected conservatives to the cause by calling them names. He uses the exact same tactics as Obama – Alinskyite to the core.

besser tot als rot on October 10, 2012 at 10:16 AM

The list is long and discouraging, but sanity must prevail and the emperor must be first displaced or the GOP will never be allowed to reform or wake up. Vote for Romney Ryan, fix the rest, if you can, after.

Don L on October 10, 2012 at 10:12 AM

I appreciate your comments, Don L.

I guess I’ve “settled” too many times to do this yet again. Right now, MY retirement and MY survival is assured. I won’t be hurt by anything that even the current commy-in-chief can do. That’s the benefit of a long life spent well by working hard and saving.

But I don’t see Romney as a panacea. I see him as “not much worse.” That’s not enough to get MY vote. Of course, for some folks, ABO is all they need.

I’m not a blood type voter. I want someone who is GOOD, not just someone who “isn’t as bad.”

Wino on October 10, 2012 at 10:18 AM

I’m still not voting for Romney. I definitely won’t vote for Obama, but Romney needs to say something… I don’t know… “conservative” to get my vote. I just haven’t seen it.

Wino on October 10, 2012 at 10:00 AM

You’re not paying attention. Or more likely, a bad case of PADD. Just from the debate:

essential role of government:

The role of government — look behind us: the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

The role of government is to promote and protect the principles of those documents. First, life and liberty. We have a responsibility to protect the lives and liberties of our people, and that means the military, second to none. I do not believe in cutting our military. I believe in maintaining the strength of America’s military.

deficits (and, btw, anyone who frames the issue in this way gets it)?

I think it’s not just an economic issue. I think it’s a moral issue. I think it’s, frankly, not moral for my generation to keep spending massively more than we take in, knowing those burdens are going to be passed on to the next generation. And they’re going to be paying the interest and the principle all their lives. And the amount of debt we’re adding, at a trillion a year, is simply not moral.

taxation:

But the idea of taxing people more, putting more people out of work — you’ll never get there. You never balance the budget by raising taxes.

government centralization vs. free enterprise:

In my opinion, the government is not effective in — in bringing down the cost of almost anything. As a matter of fact, free people and free enterprises trying to find ways to do things better are able to be more effective in bringing down the costs than the government will ever be.

Look, the right course for — for America’s government — we were talking about the role of government — is not to become the economic player picking winners and losers, telling people what kind of health treatment they can receive, taking over the health care system that — that has existed in this country for — for a long, long time and has produced the best health records in the world. The right answer for government is to say, how do we make the private sector become more efficient and more effective?

These are “conservative” ideas, all of them.

de rigueur on October 10, 2012 at 10:19 AM

A microcosm of faulty polling begins and ends in Ohio. The facts are:

Obama won by @200,000 votes in ’08
There are 350,000 net fewer registered D’s than in ’08
Romney has consistantly won the I’s in all polling (McCain lost I’s)
R’s are more enthusiastic about voting than ’08

How does Obama poll better in ’12 than ’08?

Tater Salad on October 10, 2012 at 10:27 AM

I am Cautiously Optimistic.

Is that the same as eeyorish?

tru2tx on October 10, 2012 at 9:18 AM

No, it’s not. Cautiously optimistic is all we can afford to be at this point. The euphoria after the debate was good, and our side needed that badly, but now back to doing tne hard work and expecting fhe worse from the dimcrat vote fraud machine. We all know what they are capable of.

jimver on October 10, 2012 at 10:29 AM

I’m old enough to bypass the voting booth rather than pick the lesser of two evils.

Wino on October 10, 2012 at 10:00 AM

And you’re mis-characterizing the moral issue. The “lesser of two evils” is, indeed, still evil. But in moral philosophy, and in an imperfect world, it is possible to perform an act of double effect, an act that produces both a positive good and an evil. The good that is accomplished justifies the act. Killing a human being may be an evil, but it is justified if it saves the life of another human being, as in the case of self-defense or defense of one’s family from an assailant. The saving of life is a positive good. The moral idea of “dual effect” is the moral basis for “just war” theory– war is an evil, but a war that prevents the enslavement or destruction of peoples is a positive good.

It is possible to argue that removal of Obama from office, and ending his devastating policies, is a positive good. The possible “evil” resulting from the election of Romney– and you don’t know yet know that it is– is another possible effect of your vote. But to call the elimination of Obama an “evil” at all is just morally silly.

de rigueur on October 10, 2012 at 10:31 AM

That suggests that some of the assumptions built into the pollster models are still leaning too far to 2008, and that Romney is actually in better shape than those toplines suggest.

I’ve been saying this for at least the past 3 months:

Romney wins in a landslide! (54%) *

*IF it’s a fair election…..and that is a big assumption

NOMOBO on October 10, 2012 at 10:33 AM

de r,

Sorry. I’ve been reading his website, not the sound bites. How about these quotes for YOU to educate yourself with?

“Part one of Mitt’s plan is to achieve energy independence on this continent by 2020″ but doesn’t say how he’ll do it. Disclaimer: I work in the oil business. I KNOW what it would take. Why doesn’t he say, “I’ll make sure the EPA makes science-based decisions?” Because he WON’T do it, that’s why. Wow. Not much different from Obama.

“Part two of the plan is trade that works for America,” except I won’t say how I’ll do this (until I see if the Chinese will donate as much to my re-election campaign as they donated to O’man’s.)

“Part three is to provide Americans with the skills to succeed through better public schools.” Yep. DOE isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. Why not? They do nothing. More government spending.

“Part four is to cut the deficit, reducing the size of government and getting the national debt under control so that America remains a place where businesses want to open up shop and hire,” except I won’t voice any spending cuts until AT LEAST 2016, and then only if my horoscope is right. (see my earlier response to this non-point)

“Finally, part five of Mitt’s plan is to champion small business.” What the eff does “champion” mean?

How about a bit of “I’ll cut spending. I’ll get rid of burdensome federal agencies. I’ll get rid of onerous regulations?”

Because he won’t. And because he won’t say it, he won’t get my vote.

I’ve said it again and again… c’mon, Mitt… throw me a bone. Make me a promise. I’ll believe YOU. But I won’t vote for platitudes that are not endorsed by you.

Wino on October 10, 2012 at 10:34 AM

do not let up. there is a reason that the Romneys/Ryans & the Obamas are spending all their time in Va.

Va is still up for grabs–I wish I could believe Suffolk’s poll that said Va is in the bag for R/R.

keep working.

kelley in virginia on October 10, 2012 at 8:55 AM

I believe it was the director of polling for Suffolk that said last night that their information indicated that VA, FL, and NC are all Red, and are firmly in the Romney camp – they won’t be conducting any more polls in those states.

That being said, it’s no time to let up…keep fighting and pressing on until election day…donate, volunteer, whatever you can do to bring this thing home.

right of the dial on October 10, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Obama won by @200,000 votes in ’08
There are 350,000 net fewer registered D’s than in ’08
Romney has consistantly won the I’s in all polling (McCain lost I’s)
R’s are more enthusiastic about voting than ’08

How does Obama poll better in ’12 than ’08?

Tater Salad on October 10, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Beats me. Scratching my head about Ohio here too. the most bizarre and all over the place poll results came from there lately. From other states too, but Ohio beat them all in inconsistency and lack of logic. And remember that there were polls showing O up by 8-10% or so more than a week ago….insne…

jimver on October 10, 2012 at 10:34 AM

It is possible to argue that removal of Obama from office, and ending his devastating policies, is a positive good. The possible “evil” resulting from the election of Romney– and you don’t know yet know that it is– is another possible effect of your vote. But to call the elimination of Obama an “evil” at all is just morally silly.

de rigueur on October 10, 2012 at 10:31 AM

So, I should vote for Romney because he probably won’t be as bad as Obama?

“Probably” is the operative word here. Give me something to vote FOR. I already know what to vote against.

Wino on October 10, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Imagine if a kook like Rick Samtorum was the nominee. Where would these numbers be?

Obama second term for sure..

rickyricardo on October 10, 2012 at 9:39 AM

And if the Queen had balls she’d be the King….

Your point?

ICanSeeNovFromMyHouse on October 10, 2012 at 10:42 AM

I’m not a blood type voter. I want someone who is GOOD, not just someone who “isn’t as bad.”

Wino on October 10, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Point well taken, but poorly rationalized. You have four choices:

1) Don’t trust Romney, vote for Obama–Obama wins America loses

2) Trust Romney, vote for Romney–Obama loses, who knows if America wins or loses

3) Dont’ trust Romney, but vote for him as the lesser of two evils–see #2

4) Don’t vote–see #1

You don’t always get the ideal choice, so you have to rationalize which scenario gives you the better result. This is the way it works in our Republic and in life in general. It’s not a matter of “settling”. It’s a matter of being realistic.

NOMOBO on October 10, 2012 at 10:44 AM

So, I should vote for Romney because he probably won’t be as bad as Obama?

“Probably” is the operative word here. Give me something to vote FOR. I already know what to vote against.

Wino on October 10, 2012 at 10:40 AM

You are voting FOR the overthrow of Obama. That is a positive thing, an act of goodness (and charity to the nation). But if doing that doesn’t seem like a positive thing, per se, for you then likely nothing will.

And, you’re right, if you believe that voting for Romney will be as bad as, or worse than, voting for Obama, you shouldn’t vote at all. “The lesser of two evils” is still an evil. But if you truly believe that, I don’t think you’re paying attention, per mine at 10:31 am.

de rigueur on October 10, 2012 at 10:46 AM

PS. I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said about Obama, darwin. I just have heard NOTHING from the R2 group that says they’ll be materially different. Maybe I’m not the one who isn’t paying attention. Hatred seems to blind a lot of those who write HA replies.

Wino on October 10, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Are you nuts? You can’t differeniate between a socialist and a capitalist?

Can you not see what Obama has done and what he’s doing? I don’t care if Romney isn’t your ideal candidate … at the very least we need to clean out all the radicals Obama has put in the Cabinet and other positions throughout the federal government. Not to mention upcoming SCOTUS appointments.

I don’t follow your logic at all. You agree that Obama is a nightmare for this country yet Romney isn’t exactly your guy so you’ll just not vote or something.

If you don’t want to vote for Romney at least vote against Obama.

darwin on October 10, 2012 at 10:49 AM

de r,

Sorry. I’ve been reading his website, not the sound bites. How about these quotes for YOU to educate yourself with?

Wino on October 10, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Sound bites? Try reading the entire debate transcript. Better yet, watch the debate. And if you still believe Romney is man of lies– as the Obama campaign as been pushing as their latest defense of the way Obama came off in debate– then I doubt there’s a bone anyone can or would care to throw you.

Since you’re such an avid website reader, can you really not find one tiny little bone from Romney that would satisfy your conservative convictions? Mine tell me to get rid of the devil you got, deal with the next devil when you get one. Liberty does not suffer tyranny, whatever else is coming down the pike. But if you’re cool with what you got, don’t pretend to be “conservative.”

de rigueur on October 10, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Proposal

How about we get the cheerleaders at the college games this weekend to get a crowd response as a poll? They hold a “four more years” for Obama and a “four more weeks” for Romney. Let the folks see what a real cross section of the electorate thinks and may the pollsters be damned or rewarded.

DanMan on October 10, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Wino on October 10, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Have you even gone to Romney’s website to see what he’s proposing?

His stance on American energy alone should be sufficient reason for you to vote Romney.

darwin on October 10, 2012 at 10:53 AM

And if Rasmussen shows Obama back in the lead tomorrow and Gallup has obama surging head by 5 pts, then I was right all along.

gumbyandpokey on October 9, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Today’s Rasmussen:

Romney 48 Obama 47, Romney +1 from yesterday.

Were you right all along, Gumby?

IamDA on October 10, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Or, another way to put it is, “People who aren’t blinded by party loyalty, LOVE MITT!!!”

bflat879 on October 10, 2012 at 10:54 AM

“Part one of Mitt’s plan is to achieve energy independence on this continent by 2020″ but doesn’t say how he’ll do it. Disclaimer: I work in the oil business. I KNOW what it would take. Why doesn’t he say, “I’ll make sure the EPA makes science-based decisions?” Because he WON’T do it, that’s why. Wow. Not much different from Obama.

Wino on October 10, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Maybe because it’s not the EPA’s job to interfere in energy production. I think you’re very confused.

darwin on October 10, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Comment pages: 1 2