Romney: Bill Clinton told me I might have won if not for the hurricane

posted at 5:11 pm on November 15, 2012 by Allahpundit

I’ve written two posts trying to debunk this idea but the fact that pols as savvy as Clinton and Haley Barbour are still pushing it is alarming. One of the lessons of the election, I thought, was that we should trust the math nerds when they read the chicken entrails of polling. Okay, well, the math nerds say that the hurricane wasn’t decisive. Mitt may be the only person in the GOP right now who benefits from believing that it was. He’s done running for office so he doesn’t need to worry about figuring out what went wrong with the larger operation or message.

In fairness to him, though, even he doesn’t sound completely convinced of Clinton’s theory, noting that BC was perhaps being overly “effusive” in his praise during their chat. He doesn’t offer a reason why but I’ll give you two possibilities (beyond the obvious “Clinton was just trying to be nice” explanation). One: Obama said at yesterday’s presser that he’ll talk to Romney before end of the year and praised some of his career accomplishments, like running the Olympics. I’m skeptical that he’d overcome his alleged disdain for Mitt enough to offer him a position of some kind — although people have been spitballing about that online — but maybe he thinks Romney can be useful to him somehow. At the very least, he’d get some points for comity and bipartisanship from the general public by bringing him onboard. Maybe Clinton is anticipating that and this was an early step to try to heal the breach. Two: Don’t forget that Romney spoke at the annual conference held by Clinton’s Global Initiative in the heat of the campaign, just a short time after Clinton destroyed him in his speech at the Democratic convention. Could be that Clinton felt obliged to reach out now since Romney was gracious enough to do him that favor. (He’s become good friends with the Bush family despite beating Bush 41.) If nothing else, it’s smart to stay in the good graces of a potential donor as generous and well connected as Romney.

But I digress. Here’s a new problem with the hurricane theory that I haven’t mentioned before. How likely is it that the race changed in the last few days when, by and large, it hadn’t changed much for the previous three months? To put it differently, what if the campaigns themselves just didn’t really matter?

We all know that most voters decide who to vote for well before the campaigns begin. In political science research, this is called the “minimal effects” thesis. Basically the vast majority of the voters vote how we would expect them to long before the election. The first study to investigate this phenomenon focused on voters during the 1940 election. Researchers found that only 8 percent of voters changed their preference over the course of the campaign. In 70 years, not much has changed…

Well, according to the best statistical models out there—no. This isn’t to say that Obama should have sat the race out as Romney dragged himself across the country. Indeed, if the campaigns were not equally run by the top professionals in the field with endless cash on hand, one campaign would matter. But when the campaigns have equal access to financial and intellectual capital, both could call it a day after the convention. Their activities simply cancel each other out. We could have all ignored the news since August and the election results would have come out the same.

There is one caveat though: as all of this evidence shows, elections are not won by convincing people to vote for a candidate for whom they are not previously inclined. The importance of the campaigns is to get more of their supporters to the polls than the other team. To paraphrase one Obama campaign aide, presidential appearances have nothing to do with convincing voters, they are about rallying the troops and keeping supporters passionate so that they actually turn out on Election Day (and bring their friends).

Reminds me of Drew Linzer’s boast that his Votomatic statistical model was predicting the eventual electoral college totals — Obama 332, Romney 206, give or take — as early as June. Another statistical model I saw claimed that the only thing that really moved the polls much either way over the last month or two was Romney’s performance at the first debate, but of course that wasn’t a campaign event. I think it’s theoretically true that two smart, well funded campaigns will more or less neutralize each other; problem is, both sides didn’t have “equal access to financial and intellectual capital” this time, or they didn’t utilize it equally if they did. Obama had more data, was smarter about how he targeted voters, was evidently more efficient in turning them out, and was shrewder strategically in defining Romney as a kleptocratic tax-cheating layoff artist early in the campaign. (Romney was handicapped in all those things by the fact that he had to worry about a contested primary.) That was the real hurricane. It blew away the traditional “likely voter” turnout model and replaced it with something that looked more like a “registered voter” model. If you’re a professional campaign “meteorologist” for the GOP, how on earth did you not see it on the radar?


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

No. It wasn’t the storm. But who am I to thaw anyone’s cold comfort?

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on November 15, 2012 at 7:18 PM

Clinton patronized Romney because the business money is with Romney, and if Romney starts blaming Clinton’s convo speech as the turning point, or his attacks on the trail, then a lot of the people who are going to take a hit under Obama will not be inclined to take Clinton’s call.

…and Obama will only reach out to Romney if Barry starts losing the Fiscal Cliff debate.

So, if we continue a slippery slide into the financial abyss, or if Benhazi gets a foothold in the White House, prepare for Barry to try and use Romney as a human shield.

But if Ryan asks Mitt to not play along, Romney won’t.

budfox on November 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM

No. It wasn’t the storm. But who am I to thaw anyone’s cold comfort?

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on November 15, 2012 at 7:18 PM

Exit polls showed that Sandy was a significant factor in many voters’ minds – were they all lying about that, or mistaken? How could you possibly know what her exact impact was in the end?

Anti-Control on November 15, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Umm.. Yeah, don’t count on Romney bailing out Barry on the fiscal cliff and count on Ryan making sure he doesn’t. It’s in Ryan’s long term political interests to tank the fiscal cliff talks; the best way for President Ryan to happen is for fiscal issues to be on the table in 2016. Plus, both Romney and Ryan viscerally hate Obama and Obama hates them. One of the only bright spots of the next four years is the verbal sparring match between Obama and Ryan that’s bound to break out

Illinidiva on November 15, 2012 at 7:40 PM

Anti-Control on November 15, 2012 at 7:31 PM

1. Being a compulsive poll-watcher, I observed how little the needle moved before/after Sandy.

2. I trust sages wiser than me.

Peace.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on November 15, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Obama had more data, was smarter about how he targeted voters, was evidently more efficient in turning them out, and was shrewder strategically in defining Romney as a kleptocratic tax-cheating layoff artist early in the campaign. (Romney was handicapped in all those things by the fact that he had to worry about a contested primary.) That was the real hurricane

In addition to unqualified support from the corrupt media, academia and the entertainment industry Obama ran for a party with a base. Romney ran for a party with no base.

Basilsbest on November 15, 2012 at 7:50 PM

1. Being a compulsive poll-watcher, I observed how little the needle moved before/after Sandy.

2. I trust sages wiser than me.

Peace.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on November 15, 2012 at 7:45 PM

1) you didn’t answer my question about what the exit polls indicated about Sandy
2) polls are not 100% predictive, as the great Nate Silver himself could tell you regarding Harry Reid vs. Sharron Angle
3) would you deny that GWB’s numbers were affected by the revelation of a DWI in his past, or that many late-deciding voters are only waiting to see if something positive about incumbents will arise which could persuade them to vote for the incumbents rather than against them?

Anti-Control on November 15, 2012 at 8:16 PM

1. Being a compulsive poll-watcher, I observed how little the needle moved before/after Sandy.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on November 15, 2012 at 7:45 PM

1) you didn’t answer my question about what the exit polls indicated about Sandy

Anti-Control on November 15, 2012 at 8:16 PM

If the polls didn’t budge before or after Sandy then they didn’t make a difference. What people say they voted for in an exit poll can be ex-post facto reasoning. How many times have we heard that some Democrat won’t vote for a Republican because he’s ‘mean’? They of course have never voted Republican and never will.

How many said they voted for Obama because of race, or free goodies in the exit polls?

sharrukin on November 15, 2012 at 8:23 PM

In addition to unqualified support from the corrupt media, academia and the entertainment industry Obama ran for a party with a base. Romney ran for a party with no base.

Basilsbest on November 15, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Actually, Romney ran against the party base; that didn’t help at all. Otherwise, I agree with your observation; it’s difficult enough to run against an incumbent, when you are running against the incumbent who is being wholeheartedly supported by a corrupt and biased media and with many younger voters thoroughly indoctrinated by a marxist education establishment and fed pap by the entertainment industry, you’ve got a lot to overcome. Dissing your base doesn’t do anything to help you win.

AZfederalist on November 15, 2012 at 8:28 PM

Anti-Control on November 15, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Be well.

How many said they voted for Obama because of race, or free goodies in the exit polls?

sharrukin on November 15, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Dunno. You’ll have to ask whites in swing states that matter: CO, IA, MN, WI, NH, who cast more ballots for Mr. Obama than they had for Messrs. Kerry or Gore. Or in farmland Dubuque, IA. Or Paul Ryan’s hometown, Janesville, OH. Ask what race they are or what free goodies they were promised.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on November 15, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Ask what race they are or what free goodies they were promised.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on November 15, 2012 at 8:44 PM

But they aren’t going to answer that question honestly are they?

Yeah I voted for the free goodies!

Exit polls can be useful, but if the polls didn’t budge then Sandy couldn’t really have been the reason they voted as many claim.

sharrukin on November 15, 2012 at 8:48 PM

Be well.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on November 15, 2012 at 8:44 PM

This is one of the stupidest replies I have ever received on the Internet – nice evasion, though!

You be well, too! :)

Anti-Control on November 15, 2012 at 8:51 PM

If the polls didn’t budge before or after Sandy then they didn’t make a difference. What people say they voted for in an exit poll can be ex-post facto reasoning. How many times have we heard that some Democrat won’t vote for a Republican because he’s ‘mean’? They of course have never voted Republican and never will.

How many said they voted for Obama because of race, or free goodies in the exit polls?

sharrukin on November 15, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Some polls did indicate movement over Sandy, so claiming otherwise is false.

You cannot honestly claim that not one person’s vote was influenced by Sandy, can you?

Anti-Control on November 15, 2012 at 8:56 PM

You cannot honestly claim that not one person’s vote was influenced by Sandy, can you?

Anti-Control on November 15, 2012 at 8:56 PM

I cannot honestly claim that not one person’s vote was influenced by the Roswell secret either.

sharrukin on November 15, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Well, partly right: the problem was also his little claque of squish sycophants who, realizing how utterly weak their candidate was and how utterly embarrassing this loss is, have to point out the losses of a couple of conservative GOP candidates to justify their own strategic “brilliance”.

ddrintn on November 15, 2012 at 5:47 PM

You’re still abusing this chicken, aren’t you. Who should we have voted for, Kreskin?

You seem to willfully forget that most of us didn’t want him in the first place. That would take away all the crap you want to fling now. Can you be any more tedious?

kim roy on November 15, 2012 at 10:18 PM

No, you lost due to massive election fraud, and I’m sorely disappointed in you that you’re not standing up and fighting it like Allen West is.

Mean Granny on November 16, 2012 at 7:20 AM

I don’t think Sandy changed votes, but it may have gotten some people to the polls who might otherwise have sat home. That may be why the undecideds broke for Obama rather than Romney. And cheating. Let’s not discount that because there appears to be a lot of that.

VioletTiger on November 16, 2012 at 8:28 AM

BC lies a lot, just ask all the women in his life and oh, yeah, the American people. Mitt, you lost, get over it, you didn’t run a very good campaign until the end and then stopped running after the first debate. You had the guy on the ropes and didn’t answer the bell. Spend your money wisely on a ground game getting the vote out and you coulda been prezzy now.

Kissmygrits on November 16, 2012 at 8:46 AM

does mittens believe everything clinton says? if so, he’s more of a loser than I thought…truly pathetic…deal with it, you cowardly liar…you lost!

Pragmatic on November 16, 2012 at 8:49 AM

none of the gays, blacks, student, or women that I’ve talked to since the election have ever been promised, received or expect to receive any gifts or free stuff from the u.s. government…mittens must be talking about people in some other country

Pragmatic on November 16, 2012 at 8:54 AM

In an election where the margin of victory in key states was about 400,000 votes- Clinton may have a point.

But then, this is typical Clinton- who knows that by helping Mr. Obama get reelected will own a big part of the looming disaster.

So Clinton is trying to hedge and probably shift blame to Christie. But they both own it.

Let’s also not forget that Hillary played a big role in Benghazi and is directly responsible for denying those men more security. Plus the hi-jinx that directly led to their deaths.

I suppose core Democrats will continue their Clinton love unabated. But most others will continue to see them for the gutless, cowardly, dishonest, blame-shifting politicians they are.

Marcus Traianus on November 16, 2012 at 9:27 AM

In an election where the margin of victory in key states was about 400,000 votes- Clinton may have a point.

Marcus Traianus on November 16, 2012 at 9:27 AM

.
Sure – thats why Ocommie lost 7 million voters from 2008,even with all that new Sandy entusiasm.

Its BS

FlaMurph on November 16, 2012 at 12:01 PM

I cannot honestly claim that not one person’s vote was influenced by the Roswell secret either.

sharrukin on November 15, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Thank you for letting me know how unserious and incurious you are about this!

Anti-Control on November 16, 2012 at 2:56 PM

I don’t think Sandy changed votes, but it may have gotten some people to the polls who might otherwise have sat home. That may be why the undecideds broke for Obama rather than Romney. And cheating. Let’s not discount that because there appears to be a lot of that.

VioletTiger on November 16, 2012 at 8:28 AM

That is my basic opinion, although I do think Sandy probably did change some simpleminded people’s votes.

To say that every single person who credited Sandy as having an significant impact on their vote was merely rationalizing sounds silly to me, and is unprovable to boot.

Anti-Control on November 16, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Are you thinking what I’m thinking?

Romney 2016

Californian on November 16, 2012 at 4:34 PM

did anyone hear about the superpac no questions asked cash reward for voter fraud convictions?
$500,000 for proof of paper voter fraud.
$5 million for proof of electronic voter fraud.
$25 million for the code used to hack the machines.

this sure would put the heat on obama and his crooked crew.
wrote about this on ulsterman but the comment was deleted.

mrks on November 16, 2012 at 5:31 PM

22 Signs That Voter Fraud Is Wildly Out Of Control And The Election Was A Sham
By Michael, on November 13th, 2012
After what we have seen this November, how is any American ever supposed to trust the integrity of our elections ever again? There were over 70,000 reports of voting problems on election day, and there are numerous eyewitnesses that claim that they saw voting machines change votes for one candidate to another candidate right in front of their eyes. In several of the swing states there were counties where the number of registered voters exceeded the total voting age population by a very wide margin. How in the world does that happen? Some of the vote totals that were reported in some of the most important swing states were completely and totally absurd, and yet we are just supposed to accept them on blind faith without ever being able to ask any questions. Of course the Romney campaign has already totally given up, so it isn’t as if there is any chance that the results of the presidential election could be overturned anyhow. But if massive election fraud did take place and nobody is held accountable, what kind of message will that send for the future? Will we ever be able to have faith in the integrity of our elections ever again?

The following are 22 signs that voter fraud is wildly out of control and the election was a sham…

#1 According to the Election Protection Coalition, voters across the United States reported more than 70,000 voting problems by 5 PM Eastern time on election day.

#2 There were 59 voting divisions in the city of Philadelphia where Mitt Romney did not receive a single vote. In those voting divisions, the combined vote total was 19,605 for Barack Obama and 0 for Mitt Romney.

#3 The overall voter turnout rate in Philadelphia was only about 60 percent. But in the areas of Philadelphia where Republican poll watchers were illegally removed, the voter turnout rate was over 90% and Obama received over 99% of the vote. Officials in Philadelphia have already ruled out an investigation.

#4 According to WND, one poll watcher in Pennsylvania actually claims that he witnessed voting machine software repeatedly switch votes from Mitt Romney to Barack Obama…

It was in Upper Macungie Township, near Allentown, Pa., where an auditor, Robert Ashcroft, was dispatched by Republicans to monitor the vote on Election Day. He said the software he observed would “change the selection back to default – to Obama.”

He said that happened in about 5 percent to 10 percent of the votes.

He said the changes appeared to have been made by a software program.

Ashcroft said the format for computer programming has a default status, and in this case it appeared to be designating a vote for Obama each time it went to default.

#5 Somehow Mitt Romney won 55 out of the 67 counties in the state of Pennsylvania and still managed to lose the entire state by a wide margin because of the absurd vote totals that Obama ran up in the urban areas.

#6 Barack Obama received more than 98 percent of the vote in 10 out of the 50 wards in the city of Chicago.

#7 Prior to the election, voters in the states of Nevada, North Carolina, Texas and Ohio all reported that voting machines were switching their votes for Romney over to Obama.

#8 There were more than 50 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio where Mitt Romney received 2 votes or less.

#9 There were more than 100 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio where Barack Obama received more than 99 times the votes that Mitt Romney did.

#10 Barack Obama also received more than 99% of the vote in a number of very important precincts down in Broward County, Florida.

#11 Wood County, Ohio (which Obama won) has a voting age population of 98,213, but somehow 106,258 voters were registered to vote on election day.

#12 Ten counties in the swing state of Colorado have a voter registration rate of more than 100%.

#13 Barack Obama did not win in a single state that absolutely requires a photo I.D. in order to vote.

#14 In Ohio, two election judges were caught allowing unregistered voters to cast ballots.

#15 Many Ohio voters that showed up at the polls on election day were surprised when they were informed that they had already voted.

#16 In fact, there were reports all over the nation of people being unable to vote because records showed that they had already voted.

#17 According to U.S. Representative Allen West, there were numerous “voting irregularities” in St. Lucie County, Florida on election day…

“The thing that spurred our curiosity in our race was the fact that at 1 o’clock in the morning on Election Night, all of a sudden there was a 4,000-vote swing that took me from being ahead to put the lead into my opponent’s hands.”

#18 In Wisconsin, there were allegations that Obama voters were actually being bussed in from out of state…

The Democrats stationed a self described “BIG Chicago pro bono attorney” as one of their two observers at this small polling place. He remained at the polling place from 7:00 a.m. until well after 8:p.m. …..A high priced CHICAGO attorney, sitting in a Sheboygan WISCONSIN polling place, observing wards comprised of 1500 voters? …. WHY???
Why would someone from Chicago be observing in Sheboygan Wisconsin? And WHY at such a small polling place? Finally, isn’t it interesting that this would occur at the VERY polling place in which all of the above described events ALSO occurred? AGAIN WHY WOULD A CHICAGO ATTORNEY BE OBSERVING AN ELECTION POLLING PLACE WITH FEWER THAN 1500 VOTERS IN IT, IN SHEBOYGAN WISCONSIN? Of all the places where there has been suspected voting irregularities, and OUTRIGHT FRAUD throughout the ENTIRE United States, WHY HERE? WHY SHEBOYGAN? WHY THIS SMALL WARD?

This lawyer spent the day running in and out making, and taking calls, which coincidentally then coincided with influxes of groups of individuals by the van and bus loads, coming in to register, AND VOTE, using what appeared to be copied Allient energy bills. These individuals often did not have photo I.D.’s, could not remember their own addresses without looking at the paper, and became easily tripped, confused and annoyed when questioned.

Many of these same individuals, just so happened to be dressed in/wearing CHICAGO BEARS apparel, and whom openly discussed “catching busses back to Chicago” with each other, with poll workers, via their cell phones in the lobby area just outside the polling place, as well as in the parking lot, both before and AFTER registering and voting.

One woman was dressed head to toe in CHICAGO BEARS apparel including perfectly manicured BEARS fake fingernails!

She complained because registering was taking too long and she had to hurry up to catch her bus back to Chicago.

We have photos of these people in vehicles with plates from different states, photos of them leaving the polls, and other irregularities.

#19 Prior to election day, an Obama for America staffer was caught on video trying to help someone register to vote in more than one state.

#20 It is being alleged that unions in Nevada have been registering illegal immigrants and pressuring them to vote.

#21 According to townhall.com, there was a systematic effort by the Obama campaign to suppress the military vote because they knew that most military votes would go against Obama…

Aiding Obama’s win was a devious suppression of the conservative vote. The conservative-leaning military vote has decreased drastically since 2010 due to the so-called Military Voter Protection Act that was enacted into law the year before. It has made it so difficult for overseas military personnel to obtain absentee ballots that in Virginia and Ohio there has been a 70% decrease in requests for ballots since 2008. In Virginia, almost 30,000 fewer overseas military voters requested ballots than in 2008. In Ohio, more than 20,000 fewer overseas military voters requested ballots. This is significant considering Obama won in both states by a little over 100,000 votes.

#22 According to the Naval Enlisted Reserve Association, it appears that thousands of military votes from this election will never be counted at all.

So what do you think about all of this?

Do you still believe that elections in America are fair and honest?

mrks on November 16, 2012 at 5:40 PM

the links mentioned above can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/cb5vfcn

mrks on November 16, 2012 at 5:46 PM

mittens 2016…laughable! he’s tainted and unwanted……he should just shut up and go away……quickly please!

Pragmatic on November 16, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Wouldn’t be surprised if the Clintons pulled the lever for Romney when we got behind the curtain. I’m almost positive Carville did.

WeekendAtBernankes on November 16, 2012 at 9:03 PM

Comment pages: 1 2