The Official Mitt Romney Thread

[Matt]

We have a thread for Obama, might as well have a Mitt Romney thread as well.

Figured this would be a good way to start it off.

Romney overtakes Obama in polls

Well, let the bashing begin.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Flawed polls?

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/05/15/how_is_obama_behind_with_50_approval.html

 

[Matt]

If that helps you sleep so be it but Obama insiders are reporting that the campaign is starting to sweat quite a bit. Especially considering that a recent Rasmussen poll also gave Romney the edge.

But even assuming both polls are wrong, there is no denying that this race is insanely close. That is bad news for Obama. For an incumbent to be this close against such a weak opponent...he should be sweating right now. I expect some shakeups in his campaign soon.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Rasmussen is a GOP leaning pollster. Everyone knows that.

I'm not sweating. Anyone with half a brain knows to expect the race to tighten once a party settles on a nominee. Public Policy Polling had Obama up by 2 over the weekend. And Intrade where people bet with their wallets, not their politics has Obama hovering around 58% chance of winning the election, while they see Romney at 40%. You saw some statistical noise and tried to drive a narrative. Let's see if those numbers hold for more than a couple weeks or get worse for Obama. Otherwise I see no reason to sweat. The 2004 election had plenty of polls that put Kerry ahead. And 2008 had polls which put McCain ahead. We know how those races turned out.

 

[enterthemadness]

Those polls are invalid til they include Gary Johnson.

For example, last time I checked Gary Johnson is at 6% nationally in PPP. 15% in New Mexico and 8% in Montana. We are doing our best with polite e-mails to get him included. Although Rasmussen and Gallup may wait and see if Gary gets higher in future PPP beforre finally including him.

I see CBS has 46% Romney, Obama 43%. leaves 11% left. Is that 11% Johnson or just undecided. Thus, flaw poll.

 

[obin_gam]

I wonder how much of a realistic chance Mittens actually has of winning the white house. From an overseas perspective it seems no one really wants to vote for him, it's just that there wasnt anyone else to get for the post in time.

 

[Matt]

Rasmussen is a GOP leaning pollster. Everyone knows that.

I'm not sweating. Anyone with half a brain knows to expect the race to tighten once a party settles on a nominee. Public Policy Polling had Obama up by 2 over the weekend. And Intrade where people bet with their wallets, not their politics has Obama hovering around 58% chance of winning the election, while they see Romney at 40%. You saw some statistical noise and tried to drive a narrative. Let's see if those numbers hold for more than a couple weeks or get worse for Obama. Otherwise I see no reason to sweat. The 2004 election had plenty of polls that put Kerry ahead. And 2008 had polls which put McCain ahead. We know how those races turned out.

A conservative leaning pollster? Now you're just in hardcore denial.

As for McCain being ahead, the only time he was ahead was when Hillary was in the race and her supporters were saying they wouldn't vote for Obama or would stay home. Once Obama took the nomination he was consistently ahead (with the one exception being McCain's post-convention bump).

 

[Matt]

I wonder how much of a realistic chance Mittens actually has of winning the white house. From an overseas perspective it seems no one really wants to vote for him, it's just that there wasnt anyone else to get for the post in time.

The thing is, it isn't so much about Mitt as it is Obama and the economy. People may not want Mitt, but they will vote for him if they feel like Obama is doing a bad job/the economy hasn't sufficiently turned around.

 

[Matt]

Those polls are invalid til they include Gary Johnson.

For example, last time I checked Gary Johnson is at 6% nationally in PPP. 15% in New Mexico and 8% in Montana. We are doing our best with polite e-mails to get him included. Although Rasmussen and Gallup may wait and see if Gary gets higher in future PPP beforre finally including him.

I see CBS has 46% Romney, Obama 43%. leaves 11% left. Is that 11% Johnson or just undecided. Thus, flaw poll.

You have officially become this year's Excel.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

A conservative leaning pollster? Now you're just in hardcore denial.

Are you sure I'm the one in denial? Do you think I just threw that out because I thought it sounded good? I'll just reply with statistician Nate Silver's assessment of Rasmussen Reports. Needless to say, I trust the New York Times writer who accurately predicted every Senate race in 2008 and the presidential winner in 49 of the 50 states, a bit more than Matt the mod on the Politics forum.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...rate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/

You should read the whole article, but here are some money-quotes:

"Moreover, Rasmussen’s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen’s polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases — that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued."

....

Rasmussen Reports has rarely provided substantive responses to criticisms about its methodology. At one point, Scott Rasmussen, president of the company, suggested that the differences it showed were due to its use of a likely voter model. A FiveThirtyEight analysis, however, revealed that its bias was at least as strong in polls conducted among all adults, before any model of voting likelihood had been applied.

Some of the criticisms have focused on the fact that Mr. Rasmussen is himself a conservative — the same direction in which his polls have generally leaned — although he identifies as an independent rather than Republican. In our view, that is somewhat beside the point. What matters, rather, is that the methodological shortcuts that the firm takes may now be causing it to pay a price in terms of the reliability of its polling."

This isn't the only article out there. Hell, read the Wikipedia article about Rasmussen Reports.

As for McCain being ahead, the only time he was ahead was when Hillary was in the race and her supporters were saying they wouldn't vote for Obama or would stay home. Once Obama took the nomination he was consistently ahead (with the one exception being McCain's post-convention bump).

I love this. You might as well say "Once Obama took the nomination he was consistently ahead, except that one time, y'know, he wasn't." So in other words, no, he wasn't consistently ahead.

McCain took the lead for about two and a half weeks in early September after he picked Palin as his running-mate. That's an eternity in politics and the same doomsayers and handswringers were predicting that Obama had blown it and McCain would win the election in a cake-walk.

And how many electoral-votes did Obama end up beating him by? Hmmmn... right. If I wasn't sweating about polls in September back then, I'm definitely not going to sweat about any polls in May right now.

Better luck next time.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Oh hai Matt.

Just thought you'd be interested in the new FOX News (!!!) poll, which shows Obama expanding his lead to 7 points over Romney.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...s-ahead-romney-as-presidential-race-heats-up/

But cling to the already old CBS/NY Times poll. If it "helps you sleep better at night."

 

[enterthemadness]

You have officially become this year's Excel.

Technically I am correct. The polls are invalid, inaccurate. Johnson is likely to be on all 50 state ballots. He is 6% nationally, 7% New Hampishere, 8% Montana, 15% New Mexico in PPP. To get to the debates in October, he needs to be in 3 or 5 polls and get 15% in them. PPP sadly ain't one of them. Gallup is and I've been e-mailing them nearly daily and when I can posting on their Facebook page to get them to include Gary in their poll.

 

[Matt]

Are you sure I'm the one in denial? Do you think I just threw that out because I thought it sounded good? I'll just reply with statistician Nate Silver's assessment of Rasmussen Reports. Needless to say, I trust the New York Times writer who accurately predicted every Senate race in 2008 and the presidential winner in 49 of the 50 states, a bit more than Matt the mod on the Politics forum.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...rate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/

You should read the whole article, but here are some money-quotes:

"Moreover, Rasmussen’s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen’s polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases — that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued."

....

Rasmussen Reports has rarely provided substantive responses to criticisms about its methodology. At one point, Scott Rasmussen, president of the company, suggested that the differences it showed were due to its use of a likely voter model. A FiveThirtyEight analysis, however, revealed that its bias was at least as strong in polls conducted among all adults, before any model of voting likelihood had been applied.

Some of the criticisms have focused on the fact that Mr. Rasmussen is himself a conservative — the same direction in which his polls have generally leaned — although he identifies as an independent rather than Republican. In our view, that is somewhat beside the point. What matters, rather, is that the methodological shortcuts that the firm takes may now be causing it to pay a price in terms of the reliability of its polling."

This isn't the only article out there. Hell, read the Wikipedia article about Rasmussen Reports.

You mock my credibility then cite Wikipedia?

I love this. You might as well say "Once Obama took the nomination he was consistently ahead, except that one time, y'know, he wasn't." So in other words, no, he wasn't consistently ahead.

McCain took the lead for about two and a half weeks in early September after he picked Palin as his running-mate. That's an eternity in politics and the same doomsayers and handswringers were predicting that Obama had blown it and McCain would win the election in a cake-walk.

And how many electoral-votes did Obama end up beating him by? Hmmmn... right. If I wasn't sweating about polls in September back then, I'm definitely not going to sweat about any polls in May right now.

Better luck next time.

That would be his post convention bump. He announced Palin in the week leading up to the convention, had the convention, had a couple weeks on top and never again. Once he had the nomination. Obama was consistently on top throughout the 2008 election aside from one brief period. To say otherwise is simply revisionist history.

Oh hai Matt.

Just thought you'd be interested in the new FOX News (!!!) poll, which shows Obama expanding his lead to 7 points over Romney.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...s-ahead-romney-as-presidential-race-heats-up/

But cling to the already old CBS/NY Times poll. If it "helps you sleep better at night."

Umm, that's nice? So the polls are going back and forth? The national average is still within the margin of error, which is historically bad news for the incumbent.

As for how I sleep, I could not care less about this election, both are corporatist who have similar policies. Two sides, same coin, all that nonsense. But feel free to drop the attitude, thanks.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

1) I know it's cool to bash Wikipedia. But non-controversial pages on Wikipedia (like Rasmussen Reports) are moderated pretty well. Any vandalism or skewing is quickly reverted and a consensus article with sources at the bottom is restored.

2) You started the attitude. I just reciprocated.

3) You said Obama was consistently ahead in his polls. He wasn't. I corrected you. I hate weasel-phrases like "except for that time..." Then that means, no, he wasn't consistently ahead.

4) You conveniently forgot to address Mr Silver's analysis of the bias in Rasmussen Reports. Which was the whole point of the post you were replying to in the first place. Instead you thought the bandwidth would be better served with a giant meme pic. Giant meme pics are funny, but they lack substance. Kind of like your reply.

 

[Matt]

1) Oh please, Wikipedia is hardly reliable. I enjoy it for what it is, basically the ultimate source of information, but it is far from a reliable source for anything.

2) Not really but I don't really care if you drop it or not. I'm just pointing out that you won't be here much longer with the attitude (not only in this thread). You are already on radars, I'm just trying to give you a friendly warning. Not that you've crossed the line here, I enjoy your dick measuring. But take the advice or don't, I really don't care either way.

3) You're confusing the word consistently with constantly.

4) I'll be honest, I didn't read it. Such things bore me. It is like looking for a conspiracy where there is none. So they got it wrong in favor of conservatives a few times? Great. Zogby called 2004 for Kerry based on exit polls around 6 pm on election day. I'd hardly say there is a liberal conspiracy there. A few wrong polls that go to the right is hardly a conservative conspiracy. You and Nate Silver (who certainly doesn't hide his liberal leanings) are seeing something where there is nothing.

At any rate, we can argue til the cows come home. It doesn't change the fact that Rasmussen is one of the most respected pollster agencies in the country nor does it change the fact that the only poll that matters is the one in November. The fact that incumbent is within the margin of error at this point is cause for concern for his re-election bid. Does it mean Obama will lose? Nope. It does mean that he should reconsider his strategy moving forward and try to retake control of the narrative (which is slowly but surely slipping away from him). That is the only point that I was making.

 

[Superman]

Those polls are invalid til they include Gary Johnson.

For example, last time I checked Gary Johnson is at 6% nationally in PPP. 15% in New Mexico and 8% in Montana. We are doing our best with polite e-mails to get him included. Although Rasmussen and Gallup may wait and see if Gary gets higher in future PPP beforre finally including him.

I see CBS has 46% Romney, Obama 43%. leaves 11% left. Is that 11% Johnson or just undecided. Thus, flaw poll.

You have officially become this year's Excel.

We do agree on this Matt.

Dude, you really need to give up on this Gary Johnson guy. He doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of winning because no one knows who he is. I've never seen anyone in the media even mention the man's name let alone talk about him running.

In fact, I couldn't swear that I know the man even exist since you are the only person I've seen talk about him.

Just give it a rest, Whoever he is he's a nobody as far as this election goes.

 

[Chris B]

So apparantly the Romney campaign is deliberatly aiming for a "boring white guy" to be the running mate. With the current frontrunners being Portman, Pawlenty, Daniels, and to a lesser extent McDonnell.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=CBD1171C-FB83-49C0-9DD8-4689F47966B5

 

[DACrowe]

So a pro-Romney SuperPAC got caught with an incredibly offensive plan to race bait on the Rev. Wright crap? Are we surprised?! The far-right whether it be on Fox News or those they (and the shady SuperPACs) pander to, has been race-baiting along these lines since 2008. It is always funny though to see Mitt try and disavow something, even though he was openly playing with Wright rhetoric in February with Hannity. His campaign should be renamed "See Mitt Do Flips." Now, time to sit back and watch the media frenzy run around race for the next five days.

 

[Matt]

Politics of it aside, Super PACs are one of the worst things to happen to America.

 

[DACrowe]

A conservative leaning pollster? Now you're just in hardcore denial.

As for McCain being ahead, the only time he was ahead was when Hillary was in the race and her supporters were saying they wouldn't vote for Obama or would stay home. Once Obama took the nomination he was consistently ahead (with the one exception being McCain's post-convention bump).

I'm not going to say the polls are great. It's quite scary that so many in this country would vote for Mitt "The only thing I believe is I should be President" Romney. However, your anti-Obama bias is making you overreact way too much to the polls tightening now that there's a (presumptive) nominee. And Rasmussen, while a respected polling source, does lean slightly conservative. That's why they almost always have a race closer in favor of a conservative or, if the conservative is likely to win, running away with it. It's a good source, but the numbers are always a bit more right-leaning than other pollsters under all conditions.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

Sorry but people on the Obama side can no longer argue about Romney flip-flopping (of which I have no doubt he has done) after his "evolution" with gay marriage.

And arguing bias with polls is silly. If it was the other way around, we'd be seeing headlines about how Obama is leading Romney and few to none would question the bias of pollsters.

 

[DACrowe]

Sorry but people on the Obama side can no longer argue about Romney flip-flopping (of which I have no doubt he has done) after his "evolution" with gay marriage.

And arguing bias with polls is silly. If it was the other way around, we'd be seeing headlines about how Obama is leading Romney and few to none would question the bias of pollsters.

I tend to look at aggregates of professional polls rather than individual ones. The aggregation shows that the race is tightening and Romney is closing. However, knowing the history of any polling company--especially if you're going to use a single poll as proof of anything--should be important.

As for Obama on Gay Marriage, this was him coming out pretty amazingly in support of something morally and ethically right while also leaving himself open to political risk (he hopes to win NC, which just by 60% voted to ban gay marriage).

Besides, all politicians change positions, as cynically frustrating as that is to say. However, Romney has literally been on both sides of every major issue likely more than once.

In the 1990s he ran as a proponent of gay rights and promised the citizens of Massachusetts he'd be a better friend to the gay community than Ted Kennedy.

He wrote an op-ed called "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" and then takes credit for the Auto Rescue working.

He passed a universal healthcare bill with an individual mandate in Massachusetts and is now running against "Obamacare" by calling it socialism.

He has been for and against the Paul Ryan plan.

He flipped in the matter of 4 hours between supporting and opposing Ohio in stripping public workers of the right to unionize, twice.

He has both believed and denied climate change/global warming.

He's supported immigration reform and then positioned himself in the primary as further right on the subject than Santorum and Perry.

Today he is opposed of making politics "personal" or bringing up Rev. Wright when he did that himself on Hanniy in February and blitzkreiged both Santorum and Gingrich in the primaries.

There are countless other examples. I just am tired of writing them down. Romney is the most dishonest politician to run for POTUS that I can think of in the last 20 years. Doesn't mean he'd be the worst (thinks of Bauchman, Santorum, Perry, Paul and Dubya and shudders), but that man has one belief: He should be president. Everything else is negotiable in that regard.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

You really think Obama supported gay marriage because he thought it was "morally and ethically right?" Sigh. Then there's nothing else left to say.

Your argument was "Romney flip-flops!" Well...so has Obama. Posting a bunch of examples of the former doesn't change the fact that the latter did. And via various pollsters (including New York Times/CBS News - not a pro-Romney set of guys), people think his move was 100% calculated and thus not believing him.

But only Romney is terrible for flip-flopping and Obama isn't? Gotcha. As I said, we're done here.

 

[Smashlilman]

I'm not going to say the polls are great. It's quite scary that so many in this country would vote for Mitt "The only thing I believe is I should be President" Romney. However, your anti-Obama bias is making you overreact way too much to the polls tightening now that there's a (presumptive) nominee. And Rasmussen, while a respected polling source, does lean slightly conservative. That's why they almost always have a race closer in favor of a conservative or, if the conservative is likely to win, running away with it. It's a good source, but the numbers are always a bit more right-leaning than other pollsters under all conditions.

I don't see whats so scary about Mitt. If he were to some how win its not like he would be some kind of radical. I'd take loss to Mitt over any other republican any day. But i just can't see him winning. The most Mitt can hope to do is set him self up as a viable alternative to Obama and hope that the economy get worst right before election day. Obama will still win if he turns out his base in key states. Most of the Independents that voted in the last election will stay with the same candidates they voted for in 2008. Only a few will switch to Romney. Independents like the play it safe when voting in midterms. I can't see Romney winning the popular vote but i can see him winning the electoral college.

 

[Matt]

I think a lot of independents will jump ship if they feel that Obama has failed.

Regarding Romney, I agree. He and Obama's differences are minimal. Both are pro-big business corporatists. Same coin, different sides. I'd rather see Romney win now and be very beatable in 2016 to someone like Brian Schweitzer, Kirsten Gillibrand or Sherrod Brown than have four years of almost identical policies under Obama only to lose the White House to a radical conservative in 2016 (history dictates that unless there is a strong VP candidate which Biden is not, the White House changes parties after a two termer...and Republicans will see the rejection of the moderate Romney as a call to move further right....President Rand Paul or Chris Christie....God help us).