There’s also a less partisan explanation. That is that people tend to struggle to imagine someone other than the current occupant of the White House as the president until he, well, isn’t anymore — even if they don’t like him or don’t plan to vote for him.Yes, we do have a way of picturing things continuing as they have been. And no one is really good enough to be President, but the incumbent is already President, so our resistance to picturing a person as President doesn't come into play.
१६ सप्टेंबर, २०१२
Why do so many more Americans think Obama will win than want him to win?
It's the media coverage, isn't it?
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१४३ टिप्पण्या:
WWWhat?
Cillizza is an Obama fanboy so if he is worried, it cheers me up.
The best comparison I can come up with is "who is going to win the Cold War?" Whittaker Chambers was convinced he had chosen the losing side and didn't live long enough to know he was wrong.
Because Romney hasn't really told us why he should be president and what he would do.
I'd like to vote for Romney, but he's not exciting me.
And, so far it appears that Obama has stuck the Ghost of Bush thing on him.
Natural pessimism?
The media is getting scared, so they're piling on the "All is lost" meme.
The latest Black Rock poll is skewed D +13, while Ras' swing states poll has the Romster up by 2.
Inertia is pretty powerful. It’s much more difficult to imagine something that has never happened before than it is to imagine something that has happened for four years.
Why? Because Obama is ahead in the polls. Seems reasonable to assume that whoever is leading with 6 weeks to go will probably win.
Frankly, I have been pretty down all day after watching Fox News Sunday and hearing them all agree that Romney and Ryan are fading fast.
I just cannot believe that people will not turn this man out of office. He's clearly unfit and is VP is even more unfit.
As I've been saying, for me it's the amazing immovability of the Obama voter. I think few people are voting for him that didn't before, but most of the ones who did are incapable of being switched. He could do virtually anything and be excused for it. "Protected" if you will.
"Why? Because Obama is ahead in the polls. Seems reasonable to assume that whoever is leading with 6 weeks to go will probably win."
Yes, the math makes perfect sense. If Obama had, for example, 60% of the vote, maybe 90% of the people would think he'd win. There's nothing off about that at all!
All Romney has to do is mount a 3 year plan to attain complete energy independence. That's called killing all the birds with one stone.
Yes, it's partly the media coverage. It's also partly Cillizza's "less partisan explanation". But it's also something much simpler: name recognition. Romney still has that battle to fight. What percentage of "likely" voters could name him at all? If it's not pretty close to 90% or so, he's probably got easy votes to pick up, as compared to Obama: everyone knows who he is.
Add to that who answers polls, how desperate the pollsters are to figure out how to fix that sampling problem, and how Obama's manifest failures in almost every area will make late, slow, non-critical thinkers break for the new guy, and you get a simple result:
Romney will probably win handily.
"of the vote" = polls said that number was planning to vote for him.
If that were the case, nearly everyone should predict he would win.
I'd like to vote for Romney, but he's not exciting me.
"Exciting" is not part of the job description for President.
We ended up with this current failure of a President because people wanted to be excited!
If Obama wins is no biggie..
Some of us will just go on food stamps and be careful what we say.
Perhaps, a poor choice of words, Palladian.
I'm not one of those people who have deluded themselves into believing that Romney is actually a conservative Republican. I've always thought he's a RINO.
By "excited," I mean having any conviction that Romney would really attack the serious problems of entitlement explosion and deficit reduction. Nor do I think Romney is a proponent of small government.
Is he incrementally better than Obama? Probably.
There is a hit piece on Romney's convention speech and other things (like Clint Eastwood) and his campaign not working in Politico. Hits keep coming. And you ask why people think Obama will win. Media is doing its job whoring itself to Obama.
Natural pessimism?
I think there's something to this. It's a generalization (so only goes so far), but conservatives are characterized by a strain of pessimism, both ideologically and temperamentally-- that's part of the reason they're conservatives.
Conservatives are suspicious of too much optimism and idealism; they prefer not to get their hopes up, and actively resist doing so. They expect and prepare themselves for disappointment.
As opposed to those who go all in on "hope and change."
"Because Romney hasn't really told us why he should be president and what he would do."
I don't think these things ever really matter, but he has had plans and policy preferences published for many months.
Like Obama, you don't know exactly what he will do, because it's unknowable until situations mature through negotiations, appointments and votes, but you know generally what direction it will go under each man, and you know how both men have handled responsibilities in the past, so the choice is pretty clear. As with most people that you hire, you choose them based on their proven abilities and past performance, not promises. That's how it always works. We are choosing a man, not a plan.
Yes, the math makes perfect sense. If Obama had, for example, 60% of the vote, maybe 90% of the people would think he'd win. There's nothing off about that at all!
Yeah, I would think that if Obama - or any candidate - were up by 20 points with 6 weeks to go, most everyone would expect him to win.
Did you expect McGovern to win, way back when?
But yes, I also think media coverage/ spin, the usual drumbeat from the usual suspects, is driving a lot of this.
I am hanging my hat on the reports that most polls over sample the left wing commie pinkos (aka the Dems).
That's my story and I am sticking to it until the real results are in.
Two points:
A lot of people (including a lot of independents) think the urban machines will produce a lot of votes that don't actually have associated pulses. If any state with a big population center when it's close the Democrat will win.
Almost everyone wanted Obama to succeed. I wanted it, although I didn't expect it, and I voted my expectations. A lot of people voted their hopes, and it's hard to say to yourself that voting for hope is wrong. That's why so many of my liberal friends seem absolutely miserable when they aren't lashing out senselessly. If Obama had delivered on half of what he promised, I'd say take him over the guy who delivered unto us RomneyCare. As is, I'm holding my nose and voting against the abject failure.
Related aside: As much as the media is trying to bury what's happening in the Middle East, the amplitude of the lashing out by Obama's apologists can't be hidden. This election again be all about the independents, and if they feel the Administration is in the process of losing its sh*t they will vote against it. Obama is one really bad moment away from losing in Carter-esque style.
Have you heard Romney give a stump speech?
Terrible. And I don't mean the substance. His speaking style is just awful. He seems to be constantly searching for words, stammering... it's tough to listen to.
These last few election cycles, old media has become increasingly irrelevant both to informing my own decision making process and just getting truthful information out at all. It seemed like that growing irrelevancy was mostly true for others as well, but now I'm not so sure.
Old media has gone from being an obstacle that conservative candidates must account for and work around to being an active enemy that must be confronted and battled. And I think conservative candidates in general have been late to realize how wholly shameless the media has become.
Overall we're not doing too well on that front. Romney may win and he may even win big, but if he does it will be because the president has done such a bad job and the bias is so outrageous that even disinterested people can see the truth.
Of course Obama is going to win. Of course the polls reflect that.
Have you heard Romney give a stump speech?
Does he sound like this?
Bill, well said. I think you're correct.
The question is not why Romney wants to be president. The question is do we want the current one in the White House for four more years, or do we want to take a chance with the other candidate. Don't excuse yourself for making a wrong choice by saying he did not make the sale. You have the responsibility to look into them beyond their campaign ads, which are mostly hog wash, and make informed choice. Otherwise, you don't deserve to vote.
The MSM are doing what MSM do best: they always cover up for the Dems. When Fast and Furious was going fast and furious, when Solyndra was going down, NYT said whether you like Obama or not, one thing is there hasn't been a scandal in his administration.
Reagan was always a 3rd rate actor, never two terms governor of the largest state of the union. Carter was a "nuclear scientist", even though he "graduated 59th out of 820 midshipmen at the Naval Academy with a Bachelor of Science degree with an unspecified major". W. has no gravitas, Al Gore was so smart even though he flunked out Divinity school. Obama is brilliant even though he can't utter a coherent thought without the Teleprompter. Palin is stupid even though she makes millions without the connections of a rich daddy or a powerful husband.
The MSM are always the propaganda branch of the Democratic Party. In October, the third rate actor was 6 pts. behind the cerebral nuclear scientist. The unemployment rate was 7.5%, the Middle East was on fire.
I'm going to be a bit like the poster Mick in a one note jag, but go take someone to see "2016" the movie.
I went tonight thinking I knew what the film would be from reading the book and discussing it here. But seeing this film in context of the events in the middle east this past week was eye opening.
You wondered why in the span of one week, Obama could allow our embassies to be attacked, snub Bibi and then blame an American filmmaker. The 2016 movie pretty much answers all those questions in a fast paced last 30 minutes (which ties together the first hour very well)
The movie was like finally understanding an algebraic equation you previously couldn't solve. Brilliant film.
And to add to the above, 2016 does a great job of explaining why a ton of Americans voted for the guy and perhaps still support him due to racial guilt.
Puts in context the Clint Eastwood message that it is ok to fire him. Until a subsection of America accepts that message, these polls will continue to be dicey.
Voters being sick and tired of pollsters continuously calling them and asking irrelevant questions aside, Obama = the power of incumbency and Willard = a clueless, won't release his tax returns, won't tell anyone specifics about his economic plans, etc.
Known vs. discombobulated unknown.
btw, too bad Obama gave the order to terminate bin Laden w/extreme prejudice 'cause now no October surprise er no bin Laden audio tape just before Obama crushes Romney.
hmm, maybe a condition orange alert ;) just before the election would help.
>
Again, who are these voters who actually answer poll questions as I've been hanging up for the last (3) mos.
Barring unforeseen circumstances ie a total economic collapse, it will be a fairly easy victory for Obama, Willard's total ineptitude/incompetence as the conservative media/hierarchy has pointed out recently, notwithstanding.
The "less partisan explanation" is rather idiotic. That would be like voting for Obama in the first place. Oh wait
Barring unforeseen circumstances ie a total economic collapse, it will be a fairly easy victory for Obama
The total economic collapse comes after Obama's victory.
I avoid all public (that is outside the internet) political discussions, and even there I'm using a pseudonym.
The racial issues involved in talking about Obama are a dead loss in every social and professional situation I experience.
Perhaps, this is the explanation.
" Again, who are these voters who actually answer poll questions..."
Indeed, who are they?
Pollsters ask themselves, which way do they skew?
It's because we know we're screwed and there's not a thing we can do about it. Yes, we can vote but look where that got us the last time. Who could possibly have any confidence in the American electorate to make any kind of sensible choice here? This is the country that elected a guy to be President of the United States because it made them feel good doing it. And while nobody's probably going to be getting their thing on voting for Obama this time, it's not like voting for Romney would provide any kind of cheap thrill either. It will be the equivalent of a mercy f*ck, voting for Obama. For the memories if nothing else.
The reasons so many people say Obama might very well win is because it's more like a fatalistic prediction.
They see the country going down the tubes and they say to themselves,"aw shit, that looser, I bet wins again."
But yes, can can be voted out, just as Jimmy Carter was. Just as Bush Sr. was.
No reason we have to stick with that bozo.
The tactics of the vicious left (that is, people like Andy) have effectively silenced just about all honest political and social discussion in the world I live in.
Andy's vicious shit head tactic of labeling all opposition to his ideas as "bigotry" has been very effective at silencing people.
The vicious little bastard is succeeding in that regard.
Cons are fatalistic 'cause they look at Willard and say, how the fuck did we get stuck w/this turkey!
Also, it seems that the polls are in direct conflict with almost all the anecdotal data points I'm seeing.
Most polls either show Obama winning, or a very close race. The response to this is to say that the polls are ridiculously oversampling Democrats. That may be true and it may not. I'd like to believe it but overall, when you average the polls and ditch the outliers, we get the results above.
The individual data points however, would suggest an easy Romney win. The indefensibility of Obama's record, the fully engaged opposition, declining support for Obama in all the key constituencies, barely-filled Dem venues vs SRO Rep venues, various historical analogies that suggest the likelihood of a hard break to the challenger at the end of the campaign. If these things are even partially true and if the Bradley effect is even remotely in effect, this could be a 1980 type election.
But the polls are what they are and they shouldn't be discounted. Whatever happens in November will seem obvious in hindsight because there was evidence to support it, but these scenarios are in tension with each other and I don't think they can both be true.
In some perverted way, I'm hoping that Obama is re-elected.
The contradictions of the civils rights era of the 60s exploded into the quota system and the massive political corruption that that system encompasses.
The civil rights era also opened the door to the con job routine of the feminist and gay activist movements. Both are built on phony martyrdom stories. You'd think women and gays were actually facing real physical danger and hatred in the U.S. This, of course, is and always has been utter bullshit.
Obama's re-election will insure that these contradictions and lies explode into a crisis of corruption.
It's almost worth re-electing him just to watch this huge edifice of lies finally come tumbling down.
Shouting Thomas, the contradictions and lies have exploded into a crisis of corruption during his first election. It didn't change anything. It didn't even change most people's minds.
Last time around, some large portion of Obama voters could say they thought they were voting for a different candidate than the one they got. There's no such excuse this time. The choice is absolutely clear. You can call Romney a bad conservative or a bad candidate and maybe it's true but we still have as clear a choice of ideologies as we're going to get.
If Obama wins reelection we will no longer be trying to keep America from becoming a fundamentally different country, it will BE a fundamentally different country and we will be trying to convince the majority of voters to do the hard work of changing it back.
Obama's re-election will insure that these contradictions and lies explode into a crisis of corruption.
It's almost worth re-electing him just to watch this huge edifice of lies finally come tumbling down.
This is as foolish, utopian, idealistic a hope as the Marxist's belief in the forward progressive march of history, driven (just as in your scenario) by dialectical contradictions. The contradictions emerge, clarify, pop, and there will be some kind of enlightenment/ correction on the other side.
Nope. Contradictions and lies can fester forever in a society, intensify and worsen, while the populace goes deeper and deeper into denial. No pop, no dialectical salvation. Just a deeper and deeper pile of shit. See Europe for example.
(Not to mention the fact that IMO societal "contradictions" aren't necessarily bad/ unhealthy; all human societies bear a mass of contradictions. But that's another topic.)
I was thinking how wildly off the polls have been the last 2 years. (guess which direction) I don't think any of them predicted McDonnell's and Christie's election along with the democratic slaughter of 2010. If I was a democrat I don't think I would be popping any champaign corks. YOu have to go back to 2008 to have anything to cheer about. What has changed in their favor? A robust economy? Why should we believe the polls now? Why the sudden confidence in polls that keep getting it wrong?
I am shocked at the way the media locked ranks behind Obama during this massive horrific screw-up and then managed to frame Romney's straightforward response into a gaffe of such proportions that the question of the week became "Did Romney just sink his campaign?"
And they seem to be getting away with it.
I don't know what country I live in this week.
yashu said...
Nope. Contradictions and lies can fester forever in a society, intensify and worsen, while the populace goes deeper and deeper into denial. No pop, no dialectical salvation. Just a deeper and deeper pile of shit. See Europe for example.
What is it about the right wing and Europe? Why pick on Europe? Have you ever been to Europe? It's really nice. It's not perfect, but still really nice. People seem pretty prosperous and happy and the architecture looks someone gave a f**k, unlike most of the commercial architecture over here.
Also, it's hilarious that Politico has already written their post-mortem article about why Romney lost.
All's well in the European Union. No crisis at all.
the architecture looks someone gave a f**k
Absolutely precious, that you have ostensibly been to Europe and you are comparing architecture.
Tell us: what architecture do you allegedly enjoy in Europe? When was it built? Did you ever venture out of the tourist zone of the places you allegedly were?
Hilarious. I won't even get to the broader comment. No need.
I reread Cat's Cradle last year and found it holds up. I stopped reading Vonnegut after Breakfast of Champions. Every time I sampled his later work I was disappointed. Then when he went the full Bush Derangement Syndrome in the 2000s, I gave up entirely.
From his son's recent memoir, I gather that Vonnegut became an unpleasant crank and annoyed just about everyone in the later years of his life.
My impression of Vonnegut is that he was more damaged by his WWII experiences than I realized when I read him in high school. Then I thought all his wistful so-it-goes cynicism was him being cute and funny. But now I see that he had been broken. He had stared into the pit too long and come back in despair and all he had to cover it with was humor and a kind of sad idealism that didn't really cover it.
But Vonnegut was an original and I suspect will be read farther into the future than many of his more respectable contemporaries.
Andy R. said...
Also, it's hilarious that Politico has already written their post-mortem article about why Romney lost.
Yes, I found this a little odd. A lot of Republicans are clearly distancing themselves from Romney at the moment. This doesn't seem justified by the polls. Presumably the professional republicans are better at judging the mood of the electorate but I can't see it myself.
Oops. Wrong topic.
If Politico has called it for Obama, it's obviously over.
And that beautiful architecture in Europe. Just beautiful. Just so eye catching. We should be like them.
It's the media coverage, isn't it?
You're an idiot, Althouse.
Sure, the "it's the media coverage" reason is the oft-repeated Republican talking point about the discrepancy. It's become a fucking mantra by now. Meanwhile, the Republican insiders are in a tizzy. WHAT DO WE DO?! YIKES!!!
Why are you repeating propaganda, Professor? No critique. No opinion of your own, except the "see him as the President" tangent.
This is weak. So very weak, Professor. Symptomatic of the weakness of your blog over these few months...
How about this? Because, in a two-man race, which the Republicans and Democrats have contrived together to make this election (thereby ensuring that a Ross Perot will never happen again), people simply prefer Obama.
They might not like Obama. They probably disapprove of Obama. Therefore they don't want to admit right now that they're gonna have vote for "NOT ROMNEY". They'd like some beaming, successful, confident leader to come down from Gaul, take command, and send these two amateurs off to retirement. When the Divine Julius doesn't appear, they'll come out of the closet for Obama as the best bad choice.
The alternative is Romney, after all. People-- you need to give the public some credit!-- can see through his flip-flopping and stage-management and gaffes to the opportunistic big-government authoritarian "conservatism" that he represents, and they don't like it. People just don't prefer the ideas of today's Republican Party over those of the Democrats. Romney doesn't even present that much of an alternative. The dude invented RomneyCare, you know, at the same time that he was pro-choice.
It has much less to do with image, how the public sees the candidates, etc..., than it has to do with policy and ideas. You denigrate the American public, Althouse, by assuming them to be empty-headed mindless consumers of the MSM.
Also, it's hilarious that Politico has already written their post-mortem article about why Romney lost.
QED. It's hilarious that you can't see that.
Shorter God: I just read a piece at Politico and now I think I am going to spout angrily at Althouse. I will use the word professor a lot, as if it makes me witty.
Ann, I am in SW Ohio, not to far from where your man is from, about 30 miles as the crow flies. I do not know a person,Family,friends or business partners, who will admit that they are voting for Obama this time. That certainly was not true in 2008. When you drive around my area there is not very many Romney signs, there sure is a lot of Mandel signs. A heck of a lot. The only place I have seen Obama signs is at a local union hall and a house several miles from us.
Seven Machos said...
Absolutely precious, that you have ostensibly been to Europe and you are comparing architecture.
I still don' t get why the right is always hammering on Europe. It is really pleasant living there. The south of France and much of Italy have got be some of the nicest places to live on the planet. Switzerland is also a very livable place as is the south of England, at least in summer. The universities are outstanding places for teaching and research, they have low levels of violence in their cities and excellent medical care. What am I missing here? It's where white people come from for god's sake, a Republican dream. I don't like soccer, but you don't have to watch.
What's the problem w/Romney, exactly? His principles aren't clear? He doesn't speak well on the stump? He belongs to a weird religion? His wife rides horses? Except for the horse stuff, all those things can be said of Obama, in equally strong or stronger terms.
How much evidence does anyone need that Obama is a massive fuckup, in way over his head?
I'd love to hear an Obama supporter explain clearly what his or her reasons are. That is, what exactly is it that you like about Obama's plans for a second term? Cuz maybe I'm not paying attention, but I haven't got the slightest idea what his plans are. Sure, I have a forecast--and it's not pretty--but I haven't heard anyone give one single positive reason for voting for the guy.
I live in San Francisco and I see almost no Obama 2012 bumper stickers while driving here or in Marin or Berkeley. There are more leftover 2008 stickers than for the current campaign.
The impression given by the polls and the media might be very wrong this year. I certainly hope so.
Seven Machos said...
And that beautiful architecture in Europe. Just beautiful. Just so eye catching. We should be like them.
I think you might have anger management problems. I would discus this with your GP on your next visit. Pretty sure there are effective treatments available.
I trust in the common sense of the Murkan people.
If they vote for four more years of this--or worse, no holding back out of desire to be re-elected--well, the next best thing would be gridlock.
"Why do so many more Americans think Obama will win than want him to win?"
I'm sure this has NOTHING to do with Mitt Romney. He's a great candidate! It's the media's fault nobody likes Romney...
Speaking of why's and wherefore's, a blast from the past ...
08 reasons Barack Obama will win next Tuesday
08 reasons Barack Obama might lose next Tuesday
Cons were ((( wishin'/hopin'/prayin' ))) the Bradley Effect would save the day, although some political analysts say if Obama was not African/American he would have got (5) million more votes.
In any event, it wasn't close!
Wow, even Jennifer Rubin (!) has an article about how Romney is blowing it. Is there anyone willing to defend Romney and say he is doing a good job? This is like the McCain campaign all over again, where everyone knew he was going to lose.
Romney is left to make the argument that although he can't run a political campaign, he would do a great job as President.
Chip S. said...
I'd love to hear an Obama supporter explain clearly what his or her reasons are.
One obvious reason is that he is not a total f**king embarrassment. Sixteen long years of a man who couldn't keep is his dick in his pants followed by a man who seemed to have fluff for brains. It was f**king embarrassing. These two useless f**kers were the best we had to offer. I don't find Obama an embarrassment. He killed Osama bin Laden, he didn't drive a the economy into a ditch and he didn't stick a cigar up an intern's c**t. The tyranny of low expectations, I guess.
Andy R. said...
Is there anyone willing to defend Romney and say he is doing a good job?
I'm happy. Keep up the good work.
Yes. The United States should be more like France politically, have the architecture of Switzerland, and offer the medical services shortages of England.
Brilliant, dude. But the best part is how you so obviously consider yourself a sophisticate.
Romney is left to make the argument that although he can't run a political campaign, he would do a great job as President.
There it is. The argument that Romney is unfit to win b/c he's (supposedly) losing the race. One presumably becomes qualified to be president by winning election to the office, according to this view.
This is laughably tautological. Also, it's already been disproven by this administration, which ran an excellent campaign.
Fuck the economy. Fuck foreign policy. The important thing is the president's sexual peccadillos and his intelligence as viewed by latte-drinking drivers of crappy, Buick-level European cars.
Also, it's cunt, dude. And fuck. It's a free country, unless you want to criticize Islam.
"One obvious reason is that he is not a total f**king embarrassment. "
It's amazing. Almost like some people live on a different planet, but we share the same internet. Dual dimension of existence linked by blogs.
He killed Osama bin Laden, he didn't drive a the economy into a ditch and he didn't stick a cigar up an intern's c**t.
Romney won't kill bin Laden, but neither will Obama in his second term.
649 economists think that Romney will do a better job than Obama. Meanwhile, the website "Economists for Obama" appears to be a one-man operation with nothing much besides links to tales of the 2008 campaign.
And I'm confident Romney won't have cigar fun w/any interns.
The important thing, Bag, is not that real unemployment is epically high and reported unemployment is over eight percent, or that gas is well over four dollars per gallon, or that we just had an ambassador killed, or that we have a war going on.
No, the important thing is that people who think they are smart are comforted because similar people are in charge. Also, Europe is so beautiful.
Seven Machos said...
the architecture of Switzerland
I'm giving you this one, that was an ugly building.
"What is it about the right wing and Europe? Why pick on Europe? Have you ever been to Europe? "
Yes, many times. I love France but have you been to Greece lately ? Why not visit Athens right now ? I understand it's cheap, like Cairo.
I don't trust the polls but, if I'm wrong, my kids will have to live with the results. Which will be very bad.
That's Europe, dude. To the extent that you've seen it either in reality or in pictures, and you think it's beautiful, you are seeing only a fraction. Further, Europe is old. The good has been saved over a thousand years.
Still further, all the terrible ideas we have in architecture were imported from Europe just before and after WWII. All of them. Look into it.
Finally, your obvious, hilarious lack of knowledge in this area betrays a general lack of knowledge. Your politics is a thin gruel of tastes disguised as ideas.
I drive a Ford. I really do think you should consider my anger management suggestion. I am becoming quite concerned about your repeated outbursts. Does heart trouble run in your family? If so, please God, step back from the computer and take a deep breath. Feel the love all around you, enveloping you in loving kindness. You are at peace with the world and everyone who lives in it.
You are an idiot.
Again, Willard already had a political tryout as he was elected MA gov. w/49%. After (4) years he had a 36% job approval rating w/no chance for re-election. His hand picked victim er successor, Kerry Healey, who is now foreign policy coordinator and special advisor to Willard lol, lost to Deval Patrick, 56/35.
Thus ends Romney's political legacy/career!
Thanx for playin' and please drive safely ...
creely23, I see the same thing. In a weird turn around I have seen more Romney stickers than obama. Granted I live more like Sonoma, but even tooling around Bezerkely 2 weeks ago I did not see one 2012 sticker. I doubt it means a Romney win, but if they are depressed in Marin and Berkeley, imagine the rest of the country? You can't tell me people are going to drag themselves off the couch in Ohio and Florida to put this empty chair back in. I just don't see it.
It's amazing. Almost like some people live on a different planet, but we share the same internet. Dual dimension of existence linked by blogs.
bagoh20: My current theory is that we live in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy -- the radio show version, of course.
What is amazing to me is that so many people support a guy that broke nearly every promise he made to them. A lot of us knew and warned that the promises were silly and either incredibly naive or outright lies, but these people were true believers. Now after the sweat lodge is gone and bodies lie everywhere, many of them are still there admiring his pants crease, and inflating this fucking embarrassment to an example of the power of mediocrity. That's the how bad he's been. The sales pitch they are telling themselves now is that he's admirably mediocre, and everybody else sucks. You are still in love with the guy who's been playing you for a sucker for four years. Like an abused spouse, making excuses for him as he stumbles across the lawn. "I still love him." If you could only hear yourselves.
A little over 30 minutes since I asked a very simple question of the several Obama supporters active in this thread, and the only reply has been, It could have been worse. Well, that plus Obama killed Osama.
Not terribly persuasive.
I don't care about polls. How accurate can they really be? They rely on the basic existence, plus cooperation and honesty, of people sitting around at home, answering unfamiliar numbers on their landlines, and giving thoughtful answers to mildly intrusive questions. I don't believe a word of it. Hardly anyone I know even has a landline anymore, let alone would be even take a pollster's call.
I'll keep driving around with my MOMS FOR MITT! bumper sticker and wait for the election. If we can't throw this total incompetent charlatan out of office based on his record and character, fuck it and fuck my retarded fellow Americans who were bequeathed the greatest governmental achievement in the history of the world and managed to piss it away in a couple short generations. I won't care anymore.
Bag -- I agree, but in actuality the intense criticism of Romney at this juncture shows Obama's incredible weakness. The Politico piece is a hit piece, pure and simple, that is responding to Bob Woodward's devastating critique of Obama's abysmal leadership.
If Obama can't break 50 percent even nationwide, he is toast. He knows this. The leftist tools posting here don't, but that's okay. Tools don't know anything. That's part of what makes them tools.
And that Europe is just so beautiful. All that art, and those old buildings.
Michael K said...
I love France but have you been to Greece lately ?
No, but Greece does seem to be a basket case. They had a military dictatorship not that long ago. It takes generations to recover from that kind of societal trauma. By all accounts everyone is out for themselves, tax cheating is chronic, the politicians are corrupt, the business culture is equally corrupt. An atomized society.
And that Europe is just so beautiful. All that art, and those old buildings.
Well, most of the old buildings are in places where buildings were more important than people.
Just spend some quality time in Rotterdam and Amsterdam to understand the difference.
Because Liz Cheney, the Romney surrogate on ABC's This Week did not make a single truthful comment during almost 6 mins. of airtime. She was a virtual microcosm of the Romney campaign.
And that Europe is just so beautiful. All that art, and those old buildings.
And so much of it financed by kings. Perhaps we should try monarchy.
But I've known a few exchange students from Europe, and they say that the universities there basically tell undergrads to sod off. Same customer focus as any other "free" service.
It takes generations to recover from that kind of societal trauma.
Yeah. South Korea. Chile. Turkey. Croatia. Slovenia. The list goes on and on. The trauma lives on in each and every place.
And, of course, a large part of Germany is still struggling with trauma.
Generations, indeed. But Greece is so beautiful.
We should be more like the monolith that is Europe.
Welcome new blogger member mdbernie!
We can always use a new Axelturfer, pour le sport, as they say back in the Land of White People.
Chip S. said...
A little over 30 minutes since I asked a very simple question of the several Obama supporters active in this thread, and the only reply has been, It could have been worse.
You are missing the point that it was worse, a lot worse. Did you miss the news about the Great Recession? Did you not notice the value of your house and stock portfolio fall through the floor? Did these events not disturb you in some way? Did you think it was just another media hype job. Yes, we don't another fucking Bush. What exactly has Romney done to distinguish himself from Republican orthodoxy and from Bush?
After (4) years he had a 36% job approval rating w/no chance for re-election.
Considering it's the state that kept sending Splash and Kerry to the Senate, that's a great selling point--for Romney.
Most of the great European architects of the 20th century moved to the United States. Why? Because Europe can't go more than a generation or two without a horrific genocidal bloodbath.
Did you miss the news about the Great Recession? Did you not notice the value of your house and stock portfolio fall through the floor?
These things didn't happen in Europe, where Obama-esque socialism has taken much deeper root. Therefore, we should be more like Europe -- that monolithic place -- where they have such pretty buildings. Except the places where there was despotic military rule. We shouldn't be like any of those places in Europe. Because of the trauma.
So, therefore, obviously, the place we in Europe we should be like is...
Come on, brilliant leftist tool. Think! Think hard!
Admiring Europe is like admiring a teenager's carefree lifestyle. You have to keep in mind that they can't defend themselves, support themselves, nobody expects them to help with anything, and nobody cares much what they think or do. Their role in the world is as a noisy dependent, busy telling us that we are mean, and not very cool.
"Considering it's the state that kept sending Splash and Kerry to the Senate, that's a great selling point--for Romney."
MA had (((4 Republican))) govs in a row. William Weld was re-elected w/71% !!!
The '94 senate race between Kennedy/Willard was basically tied and then the campaign began, oops!, in which TK wiped the floor w/Willard's mittens ...
Palladian -- And also to destroy our landscapes with brutalist fortresses and minimalist monstrosities with windows everywhere but where people could benefit from them.
It's a very quaintly 19th century conceit that Europe is sophisticated. With a very few exceptions, Europe completely ceded artistic superiority to the United States.
But this American election has nothing to do with architecture or art. It has to do with saving our country from drowning, and with protecting the last shreds of individual freedom, which our ancestors escaped Europe to recover.
Palladian said...
Most of the great European architects of the 20th century moved to the United States. Why? Because Europe can't go more than a generation or two without a horrific genocidal bloodbath.
Again, why does everyone on the right hate Europe? What the fuck did they do to you guys to deserve this vitriol. They seem quite happy. Very happy in fact. We had a civil war, treated slaves really bad and ex-slaves pretty bad for a loooong time. Maybe we should cut them some slack on all those wars. At least they weren't a bunch of gun haters back then.
The desire to re-elect Barack Obama among die-hard American "progressive" partisans is sort of like a person on a murderous crime spree— after stealing the police car and killing someone, you might as well go all-out and seriously fuck some shit up, because you're toast once they finally catch you.
"Reasonable" guy, I think I understand the Great Recession just fine, thanks.
Here's one thing you don't seem to know about recessions and recoveries that I'm happy to clue you in about: As a rule, the deeper is a recession, the more robust is the recovery that follows. The reason is that the economy is catching up to its long-run trajectory.
There are two marked exceptions to this rule: 1929-1933 (with a follow-up recession in 1937) and the one that began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009. Both are due to actively bad economic policies.
Bush is not the reason for the current non-recovery recovery. It's really very simple: When you implement European-style economic policies, you get European-style economic performance.
Nobel Prize-winner Robert Lucas was kind enough to put it in simple terms for us all over a year ago. Short version: This is the new normal in the regulatory environment that Obama has brought us.
We are growing at the normal rate for an economy that was never in a recession. The losses in employment and output during 2007-09 will remain in place as long as Obama's policies remain in place.
BTW, Lucas supported Obama in '08 but is now a signer of the "Economists for Romney" statement.
Anyone who continues to refer to the continent of Europe as a single political or cultural entity, and who uses the American Civil War as a focal point in comparison to the wars of Europe since 1861 -- anyone who does that is a moron beyond help. But thanks for the laughs, dude. Thanks for the laughs.
Palladian -- I hope you are moved to treatise at this point. I will check back tomorrow.
Good night.
Seven Machos said...
Palladian -- And also to destroy our landscapes with brutalist fortresses and minimalist monstrosities
So basically what you are saying is that the europeans had the good sense to not slavishly follow modern architectural trends. Another point for the europeans!!! Three cheers for those wonderful europeans.
Also, they are conservative, in the modern FOXovian sense of the term, they don't like foreigners coming to live in their country. What's not to like.
Seven, your question remains unanswered, as it will through November.
They are struggling to find ways to prove that he's mediocre. If they make the challenges really big and bad, and then run down everyone else in sight, They might just pull that off.
Obama/Biden - it could be worse!
Again, why does everyone on the right hate Europe?
I'm not "on the right" and I don't hate Europe at all. I'm a Anglophile and a Francophile and I probably know more about Italian art history than most Italians do. But I'm also somewhat realistic about the difference between cultural achievements and good governance and respect for human freedom.
What the fuck did they do to you guys to deserve this vitriol.
Oh, I don't know... murdered my ancestors and continue to deny the inalienable, natural rights of man to live freely?
They seem quite happy. Very happy in fact.
So do chickens in a factory farm.
We had a civil war, treated slaves really bad and ex-slaves pretty bad for a loooong time.
LOL. Europeans never had any "civil" wars! Europeans never participated in slavery or genocide!
Seven Machos said...
These things didn't happen in Europe, where Obama-esque socialism has taken much deeper root. Therefore, we should be more like Europe -- that monolithic place -- where they have such pretty buildings. Except the places where there was despotic military rule. We shouldn't be like any of those places in Europe. Because of the trauma.
Seven you are becoming completely incoherent. Are you having a stroke? I warned you, no good could come of all this anger. Breath deeply and signal with little x's if you want me to call 911.
Seven .. seven ... are you still there? .....
I should also add that there's no such thing as "Europe". "Europe" is a convenient fiction of the post-WWII generation, desperate to pull the shards of decimated civilizations from the ashes of their own making.
what you are saying is that the europeans had the good sense to not slavishly follow modern architectural trends
You drooling moron. You are embarrassing yourself.
I have explained to you that people from Europe created modern architectural trends and imported them here. Anyone with a remedial understanding of architectural history knows this. Anyone who has actually been to Europe knows that Europe is filled with disgusting block cement architecture.
What a fool. What a pitiful, pitiful person.
...why does everyone on the left hate the U.S.? What the fuck did they do to you guys to deserve this vitriol.
They can't discuss the place without bringing up slavery and Jim Crow. It's like Democrats forget who did what back then. It just happened and somehow the right wing is to blame, because we want to believe that. And Obama is doing a great job too.
When did I or anyone else here say they hated Europe? Someone here is "reasonably" hallucinating strawmen.
Much of what I do involves the appreciation, study, and interpretation of great works of European thought/ art/ culture. Among the small collection of people I consider my good friends, like a quarter are European.
That's some great leftwing logic: not wanting to be in someone's situation or to make their mistakes = hating them.
AND to the latest Moby:
Obama is actually Bush without the benefits.
He's done everything Bush did that you hated, and managed to tank the economy and, as it seems, screw up things even more in foreign policy.
But hey, run the most recent numbers on all of us re: Obamacare. Red is such a fabulous color.
I have explained to you that people from Europe created modern architectural trends and imported them here.
Seven, it's really more basic than that. I've had the good fortune to work with banks in The Netherlands, and at a dinner I had it explained to me that Amsterdam is all quaint and historic because it submitted to the Germans early in the conflict.
Of course, even in the 1940s, Amsterdam was much less of a commercial port than a financial center. Rotterdam was leveled by the Allies because it was an important military resource.
No one in Holland has forgotten that.
Y'all should read the Samizdata blog--Libertarians in England and Europe engaging in some heavy duty political, cultural, and economic critique. Witty and entertaining and a great commentariat, like here.
I think that there is a lot of bias in those polls, and both the candidates know it. That is why Obama seems panicky much of the time, and maybe why he botched the 9/11/11 stuff so badly, and Romney has stayed calm and directed. In the public polls, it is things like overweighting Dems, based on 2008 and not 2010 results, and polling registered versus likely voters. It is being done purposely and I suspect to dispirit the right, since it doesn't seem to be energizing the left.
The big thing that it misses, of course, is intensity. Sure, no one is intense about Romney, but a whole lot of people are intense about their dislike of Obama and a second Obama term. Right now, I would suggest that that is a significant part of the voting public. Not half, of course, but still significant. And, all this pro-Obama spin by the MSM and their pollsters is just to suppress their turnout.
I think though that this is strategy is going to fail. Romney is sitting on a huge stack of cash, and is well versed in predicting cashflow. I expect that we will start seeing it being spent very soon - probably would have been last week, if not for the 9/11/11 violence. That is a lot of advertising.
Here is the other part - pollsters can slant their polls all they want months before an election, but they are rated on how well they do the day before, and they are unlikely to be able to justify huge swings in the last couple of days. Which means that whatever bias that they may have been using, is going to disappear as we head into the election. Their real danger is that an apparent movement towards Romney as that bias disappears may just make it look like a wave election, pushing a lot of the undecided in his direction, and energizing his supporters. I had thought that the pollsters were starting to do this, but see that the D+ weighting has seemed to increase, not decrease, over the last week or so, likely, I think, to compensate for and cover up Obama's dismal performance last week.
Of course, this is all conjecture, just as what everyone else has said here. It will be interesting to watch the dynamics as the election campaign enters the last 6 or so weeks.
"people tend to struggle to imagine someone other than the current occupant of the White House as the president until he, well, isn’t anymore — even if they don’t like him or don’t plan to vote for him."
I do not think it is true, especially considerring Obama is disliked. I think that people know, or at least think, that he is corrupt and will find the way to stay in power.
I personally think that there is a big chance of riots by all kind of lefties and anarchists in case he losses and he can use these as pretext to stay in power by some kind executive order,like the one he signed some time back (and media did not question) that puts extended powers over the US infrastracture in his hands.
Judging by Obama's run for power with no record of achievement to show and his behavior after that, he is either very cinical individual, or plain psyco, or both, so I will not put anything nasty beyond him.
Andy R. said...
Of course Obama is going to win. Of course the polls reflect that.
Reason enough to know he's losing.
shiloh said...
Again, Willard already had a political tryout as he was elected MA gov. w/49%. After (4) years he had a 36% job approval rating w/no chance for re-election. His hand picked victim er successor, Kerry Healey, who is now foreign policy coordinator and special advisor to Willard lol, lost to Deval Patrick, 56/35.
Thus ends Romney's political legacy/career!
Thanx for playin' and please drive safely .
Too bad the little animal can't open its mouth without lying (look what side it's on).
The Romster balanced the budget, brought jobs into the state, and made sure Romneycare didn't raise taxes.
The People's Republic hated him for that.
lol lol
mama grizzly althouse cheney pants down cons
%%%%%%%%mittens%%%%%%%%
"F :R ;Y
No good deed goes unpunished.
AReasonableMan said...
Seven Machos said...
Absolutely precious, that you have ostensibly been to Europe and you are comparing architecture.
I still don' t get why the right is always hammering on Europe. It is really pleasant living there. The south of France and much of Italy have got be some of the nicest places to live on the planet. Switzerland is also a very livable place as is the south of England, at least in summer. The universities are outstanding places for teaching and research, they have low levels of violence in their cities and excellent medical care. What am I missing here? It's where white people come from for god's sake, a Republican dream. I don't like soccer, but you don't have to watch.
Try to run a business there.
shiloh said...
Again, Willard already had a political tryout as he was elected MA gov. w/49%. After (4) years he had a 36% job approval rating w/no chance for re-election. His hand picked victim er successor, Kerry Healey, who is now foreign policy coordinator and special advisor to Willard lol, lost to Deval Patrick, 56/35.
Thus ends Romney's political legacy/career!
Thanx for playin' and please drive safely ...
So you took Bob Ellison's bet, then?
Easy fuckin money. Especially since you can cover your end no sweat.
Just following up KentuckyLiz' endorsement of Samizdata as some quality U.K. blogging, and a link:
www.samizdata.net
Also, kudos to Palladian and 7Machos for helping "Reasonable" achieve his breakthrough -- now he can write four letter anglo-saxon words with the best of them! Congratulations! Type it with me now -- fuck cunt fuck cunt fuck cunt fuck cunt
Yea for the salty language of our forebears!
Haven't we concluded that polling is not really all that scientific? And as such, a poll of 1,000 people isn't really all that good at predicting anything in a country of 300 million people? The 3% or so of margin of error pretty much covers their butts on every poll.
Clearly Wisconsin voters were led to think Barrett had a chance against Walker in the last election. But when the votes were counted, Walker thumped him. John Kerry thought he won the presidency in 04 based on exit polling! Bush wound up beating him by 2.5 points in the popular vote. If exit polling showed Kerry up by a point or more, then they clearly were outside of their 'margin of error'.
Thank God we have private ballots in this country. Polling is useless.
Andy R sez:
Also, it's hilarious that Politico has already written their post-mortem article about why Romney lost.
Why is that hysterical? Remember when the press incorrectly called Florida for Gore, and they were wrong? How much more over the top would Bush have been if that hadn't made THAT egregious mistake?
Or do you like it when people stroke your groupthink?
AndyR:
Romney is left to make the argument that although he can't run a political campaign, he would do a great job as President.
Better a political candidate that doesn't run a great political campaign than a great political campaigner that has proven they suck as President.
Here's another theory why the WaPo poll shows what it does. Out of those 6 in 10, there are 4 who are voting for Barry, so of course they think he will win. Then the other 2 in 10 are resigned to thinking that enough other people will vote for Barry as an affirmative action hire so that they can be proud of their country again. Even as it economically goes to hell in a hand-basket.
2 in 10 are aware of the feel-goodery side of progressive politics as espoused and championed in much of the press. 2 in 10 are cynical enough, or realistic enough, to think that a good chunk of the population will vote to make themselves feel good, rather than vote in someone who may be more competent.
AReasonableman,
You say Bush screwed things up.
What was unemployment like when Democrats won control of Congress in 2006?
What was the deficit trajectory when Democrats won control of Congress in 2006?
What proposals did President Bush make that screwed up the economy?
Who passed the spending budgets from 2007 to 2008? Democrat majorities or GOP majorities?
Did Obama vote with Democrat majorities for the spending budgets or against them?
Which party voted for TARP at the higher percentage, Democrat or GOP?
Did Obama vote for TARP, or against it?
Who pointed out the problems with sub-prime lending back in 2005-6? Bush, or Sen Dodd and Rep Frank? Who blocked any action to stop sub-prime lending, President Bush or Sen Dodd and Rep Frank?
Did Obama propose any legislation to improve the economy or stop sub-prime lending as a Senator?
What legislation did he propose as a Senator to avoid the economic crisis?
Was TARP a traditionally conservative proposal or a traditionally liberal proposal, i.e., Keynesian or Friedman-esque? Fiscal policy or Monetary Policy?
If you answer those honestly, then the only conclusion is that Democrats ruined the economy, with Obama's help.
Democrats were in control of tax rates, spending rates, budgeting, home-lending, banking, credit card rules, etc, since the 2006 election.
The only thing President Bush could have done was veto Democrat policies.
So by you blaming Bush for the economy, you are saying that Democrats always screw up the economy if not stopped by responsible Republicans.
That's the only possible way to understand your accusations.
Politico has already wrote about how Romney lost? I guess since they're not allowed to ask about Libya any more, they might as well forward a narrative more pleasing to the Party. They wouldn't want any knocks on their doors at midnight.
Another few things make me hopeful:
Democrats are hinging their hopes on things like: No incumbent wartime President has lost in xx decades.
If you are depending on historical precedent as your hope for victory, you have no confidence in the actual facts on the ground in current context, or you would talk about those.
Also, another encouraging thing is that everyone has bought into the idea that this is a battle of territory, that Obama starts with his safe states, Romney starts with his, and then there are leaners and toss-up states that are won and lost by incremental shifting of sentiment among a small group of supposedly undecided voters.
That's a bad model.
People are individuals making individual decisions. Obama is playing defense, doing nothing but attacking Romney. That is a huge strategic mistake, because while there are certainly plenty of voters who are in the bag for him no matter what, it is at least a small leap of faith to assume you know with certainty the geographic distribution of those voters.
This election is ripe for a preference cascade of epic proportions.
That doesn't guarantee a win for Romney...the press is doing everything it can to prevent a preference cascade from starting.
But I've had complete strangers of all races start conversations with how they voted for Obama last time but will vote for Romney this time, and they do this without knowing my political preferences.
The worst part for Obama? This is happening in downtown DC.
Dow Jones Average January 1993 - 3,310
Clinton's 1st Term
Dow Jones Average January 1997 - 6,813
Clinton's 2nd Term
Dow Jones Average January 2001 - 10,887
Bush's 1st Term
Dow Jones Average January 2005 - 10,489
Bush's 2nd Term
Dow Jones Average January 2009 - 8,001
Obama's 1st Term
Dow Jones Average Today - 13,593
Obama's 2nd Term
Dow Jones Average January 2017 - 19,000?
Of course, even in the 1940s, Amsterdam was much less of a commercial port than a financial center. Rotterdam was leveled by the Allies because it was an important military resource.
No one in Holland has forgotten that.
Rotterdam was bombed by Ze Luftwaffe in 1940 to encourage the Dutch to capitulate.
@Craig,
Obama's 2nd Term
Dow Jones Average January 2017 - 19,000?
So your saying Obama is a corporate shill who will screw over both the poor and the middle class to make things better for Wall Street?
Wow. I guess I won't vote for Obama, then.
Europe seems happy? You mean because in the last year there haven't been any more riots?
The media are desperate, but the Thrill is gone for Obama.
http://triblive.com/home/2538371-74/iowa-obama-2008-voters-percent-romney-hagle-record-students-college#axzz26jYsFSq7
The polls will get more and more skewed dem for a couple weeks, but they will correct as we get close, in order to preserve their reputations.
It might not be 2010, but it sure as heck ain't 2008 all over again.
Mitt isn't Reagan, but Reagan wasn't Reagan in 1980.
Mitt doesn't even need to be Reagan. He's light years better than Obama and that is our choice--move of what we're getting from Obama--unfettered by the need to get re-elected; or, something different.
Considering the beating the recovery has taken from Obama's policies, I'll take Mitt.
He will be a better president than candidate.
Of course...repubs have the largest and most effective propaganda apparatus ever assembled and they still play blame the media...
Broken records all day long....
"It's the media coverage, isn't it?"
No, it's the polls.
Erika Said: I don't care about polls. How accurate can they really be? They rely on the basic existence, plus cooperation and honesty, of people sitting around at home, answering unfamiliar numbers on their landlines, and giving thoughtful answers to mildly intrusive questions. I don't believe a word of it. Hardly anyone I know even has a landline anymore, let alone would be even take a pollster's call.
I'll keep driving around with my MOMS FOR MITT! bumper sticker and wait for the election. If we can't throw this total incompetent charlatan out of office based on his record and character, fuck it and fuck my retarded fellow Americans who were bequeathed the greatest governmental achievement in the history of the world and managed to piss it away in a couple short generations. I won't care anymore.
Well said, Erika! Just what I needed to hear this morning.
Reasonable guy has outed himself as British. Maybe he already did so but I did not notice. He used the term GP for primary care Doctor. In the US, GPs are hired by prison hospitals and state hospitals. The only ones in private practice set up Pain Management Clinics handing out powerful narcotics until the DEA shuts them down. Americans go to Internists and Family Practice Doctors if they have insurance or means, otherwise they go to the emergency room. I would say no one, but maybe I should say almost no one goes to a GP in the US for primary care.
ken in sc,
Not british, and I used the term advisedly. You missed the, I don't like soccer.
Reasonable guy, I don't like like grid-iron football. I'm still American. Regards for making a reply.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा