Crushed By Your Policies — New Romney Ad in Pennsylvania

87 Comments

  1. Brian
    Posted October 30, 2012 at 1:57 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Mister Romneychev, tear DOWN this blue wall.

    • RhodyKev
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 2:03 pm | Permalink | Reply

      That’s the spirit !!

    • Keep To The Right
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 2:57 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Lol, I’m sure RR would have enjoyed that comment! Awesome ad as well.

  2. Tone Loc
    Posted October 30, 2012 at 2:03 pm | Permalink | Reply

    That is a tough, tough ad. Good stuff.

  3. Blackcloud
    Posted October 30, 2012 at 2:06 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Clearly targeted for Western PA. There’s not a lot of coal around Philly.

    • Fred S
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 2:38 pm | Permalink | Reply

      The split screen showing Obama’s look of contempt when Romney talked about “clean coal” at the debate was priceless. If a picture is worth a thousand words, that was it. If I lived in western PA that would fire me up to turn Obama out of office!

    • Pa John
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 3:04 pm | Permalink | Reply

      There’s also a swath of coal country which starts just north of Harrisburg and ends just north of Scranton. The central and southern sections are very R and the northern part is very D.

      • Blackcloud
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

        That’s a fair point. But if Romney’s play for PA is serious, they need to target the five-county Philly area. They need votes there. Ads about coal aren’t going to do it. The super PACs are running ads on the economy there. The campaign will need similar ads. Unless, of course, they are doing an (unofficial) division of labor, with the outside groups targeting Philly and the campaign aiming at the rest of the state.

  4. Adam
    Posted October 30, 2012 at 2:08 pm | Permalink | Reply

    BOOM ROASTED! About damn time they bring that coal quote up, I’ve been waiting four years for that. Cheers Mitt, I’m enjoying a beer for you tonight!

  5. Tom
    Posted October 30, 2012 at 2:23 pm | Permalink | Reply

    PA was already going red, this will just make the margin larger. Mitt-Mentum

  6. nvClark
    Posted October 30, 2012 at 2:23 pm | Permalink | Reply

    It’s amazing to me that even with all the news and information on this blog, much of it reported and talked about in the mainstream media, such as ad buys, campaign visits, and ABC switching MN and PA to lean Obama, Intrade really hasn’t budged and the chance of Obama winning is still trading at what it was very shortly after the first debate. Someone is very very wrong, either “us” or “them” (those holding an opposing view). And if it’s “them” then to me not only will Nate Silver’s reputation deserve to be tarnished, but the “Prediction Markets” will have been dinged pretty hard as reliably accurate forecasters as well.

    • No Tribe
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 2:26 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I know nvClark, I spent the morning emailing back and forth with a Democrat with us trying to figure out which of us was crazy with the different expectations. I am pretty sure we are right, and they are not as sure… that’s about where its at.

    • Posted October 30, 2012 at 2:32 pm | Permalink | Reply

      On the morning of the 2004 election, InTrade had Kerry over 90% and continued to do so throughout the day. I wonder how many people buy into it just to try to manipulate the number,

      • displacedRhodeIslandConservative
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

        Comforting fact..I had also been concerned about its relative static position….

      • Svigor
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

        What I don’t understand is why:

        1) The Republicans haven’t put a couple bucks into a website showing InTrade numbers like Jeff’s that poke holes in its reputation.
        2) No one’s dropped the link here yet.

        My assumption on these kinds of things is that there are no such numbers, because no one is posting them. Which isn’t to say I doubt Jeff’s number, but that in my experience when the stakes are this high, they wouldn’t go unnoticed this long.

    • Dan
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 3:02 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Could be a rumor but my understanding is Intrade is mostly European money. My EU travels have confirmed an acute lack of understanding the American political process and geography. Also the topline Intrade score is all predicated on an Obama win in Ohio if you look at the state by state Intrade numbers.

      • Dogfish
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

        Dan, I think you are correct. A couple of days ago I looked at another site that was taking money on the outcome of the US elections and it was offering odds of +170 on Romney winning. That website was also based in England.

        The Europeans like Obama and they haven’t seen how destructive his policies are…. we have seen how incompetent he really is and we are going to show him the door.

        By the way, that +170 has been steadily dropping.

    • Dogfish
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 3:06 pm | Permalink | Reply

      nvClark, I have looked at the Intrade numbers and thought the same thing.

      I firmly believe that what is holding the Intrade numbers up is that the Democrats are relying so heavily on Nate Silver’s number… that Obama has a 75% chance of winning.

      It is really unbelievable …. there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence that shows that everything is moving in Romney’s direction and that even polls that lean heavily democrat show Obama below 50% and at great risk.. yet stand there glassy-eyed and number….’Nate Silver, Nate Silver’…

      Democrats are consistently short in the judgement and common sense department… that is why they are Democrats.

      I think we will see start to adjust his numbers downward as we move closer to election day, and when that starts to happen you will see the Intrade numbers drop quickly and you will hear the weeping and gnashing of teeth of the Democrats that were foolish enough to buy into the lie and have now gotten burned.

      It will be an enjoyable scene to watch.

      • Todd
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

        I’ve read numerous articles stating that intrade, at $7 per “share”, can very easily be manipulated. A decent buy of “Obama” every time Romney has a bounce can skew the outlook. I’ve noticed that when favorable news comes out for Romney the number jumps 5-9 pts immediately, then for no apparent reason drops back down within an hour or so. Maybe the single smartest money spent by democrats propping up a “faulty stock”.

      • Svigor
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

        Todd, I was wondering precisely the same thing, which is why I wanted to know the VOLUME Intrade was dealing with; how much exactly it would cost some rich Dem to buy the whole thing on the cheap as advertising.

    • ET4
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 4:15 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Unfortunately, even if Romney wins the election, Nate Silver’s acolytes will be back in full force in 4 years. They’re already rolling out justifications for his inaccuracy. Check out comments on this article:

      http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/nate-silver-romney-clearly-could-still-win-147618.html

      We all know people fawn over his ’08 predictions, even though a blind monkey could feel the wave coming. His people never fail to point out that he got 49/50 states correct and that it’s “MATH” and “SCIENCE” and “STATISTICS,” ignoring the fact that at least 40 of those states could easily be called by any casual observer, let alone someone with campaign internals.

      With regard to his lackluster 2010 predictions, his acolytes claim he supplemented it with a +/- 30 seat confidence interval. If so, what exactly is so stellar about such a prediction when the ’10 race was only a nail-biter for no more than 10 seats? Why is his reputation so distinguished when he is attaching such large margins of error to abdicate any responsibility for his flawed model?

      Now they claim that because Silver still grants a 25% chance for Romney to win, that’s a 1 in 4 toss so that would not show that Silver’s model is wrong in any way if Romney were to win. But then what would ever falsify his predictions? He can always just grant a 1% chance to the underdog and then absolve himself of any inaccuracy if they should win. His fans always like to deride others for pointing out the strange weighting Silver gives to polls in his model; they claim we are “anti-science” and that we don’t understand “statistics.” Don’t they understand that if Romney wins, Silver was STATISTICALLY betting against it, and that Silver’s record would be at best 2 for 3 if you consider his 2010 predictions to be a hit. Here’s some statistics for his followers: 2/3 correct is a 66.6% accuracy rate. Is that success rate deserving of God-like status or even an assumption that his model is working properly?

      • EpiphoneKnight
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

        The left always tries to shout opponents down by saying their position is SCIENCE…. or in this case MATH. Of course they are the party that says let’s put more money into our public schools, all the while we are the worst at MATH and SCIENCE. Irony.

      • Svigor
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

        It’s much worse than that, ET. Nate Silver’s cultists have been laying down the unfalsifiable minefield at least since I’ve started paying attention to them. Every thread I’ve read has many comments stating it’s all about probabilities, there’s still a 30% chance Romney can win, so a Romney win proves nothing, bla bla bla.

        Then what’s the point of using his predictions, if you’re just going to say he was right no matter what the outcome? (That’s a rhetorical question, btw ;))

  7. No Tribe
    Posted October 30, 2012 at 2:24 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Updated schedule appearances:

    Obama

    Tue/23rd: Florida, Ohio
    Wed/24th: Iowa, Colorado, Nevada
    Thur/25th: Florida, Virginia, Ohio
    Fri/26th: —
    Sat/27th: New Hampshire
    Sun/28th: —
    Mon/29th: Florida, Ohio
    Tue/30th: —
    Wed/31st: —
    Thur/1st: Nevada, Colorado, Ohio
    Fri/2nd: Ohio, Ohio

    Romney
    Tue/23rd: Nevada, Colorado
    Wed/24th: Nevada, Iowa
    Thur/25th: Ohio, Ohio, Ohio
    Fri/26th: Iowa, Ohio
    Sat/27th: Florida
    Sun/28th: Ohio, Ohio, Ohio
    Mon/29th: Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin
    Tue/30th: —
    Wed/31st: Florida, Florida, Florida
    Thur/1st: Virginia, Virginia, Virginia
    Fri/2nd: Ohio, Ohio
    Sat/3rd: Colorado

    It’s a little late for a Rose Garden strategy, but that’s Obama’s latest gambit. He’s cancelled events on Wed as well. Romney has a full schedule ahead. Looks great.

    • Brad
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 2:30 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Looks like Romney is still a little spooked about FL. That’s surprising. VA is still a little fragile, but I’m surprised he’s going back to FL tomorrow.

      • No Tribe
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

        He’s got the grand tour going on, with both Bush and Rubio, full state press. It’s the last finale imo. I wouldn’t be shocked if he came back to FL again, but not surprised if this is the last visit too.

      • Posted October 30, 2012 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

        These are recent schedules. I think he’s coming as a buffer mainly to campaign here in place of Virginia. I’m surprised at the lack of Colorado. Wonder if he feels confident about the Rocky Mountain State?

      • zang
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

        In 2000, Bush and Karl Rove thought Florida was wrapped up and spent the final week campaigning in New Jersey and California. Don’t count your chickens before they hatch.

    • No Tribe
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm | Permalink | Reply

      My guess is that Romney spends part of Sat, Sunday and Monday, in Iowa, Ohio, and Wisconsin (perhaps a Sat trip to NV).

      I could also see him doing an early morning of Tue election day event in Ohio, a afternoon Tue event in New Hampshire, and then voting in Boston end of day.

      • Keep To The Right
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

        I think he’ll finish in New Hampshire (had to cancel the scheduled event today due to storm) & then vote in Boston as you said.

    • edtitan77
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Concerned about Florida, Romney should have sewn it up awhile ago.

      • Dogfish
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

        Not to worry….. the I=4 corridor is going Romney big time. it is in the bag

  8. No Tribe
    Posted October 30, 2012 at 2:30 pm | Permalink | Reply

    My guess is that between IA, MN, WI, PA, and OH, that Romney is going to take at least two of those states. And alongside CO, FL, VA, that’s enough to win.

    • Posted October 30, 2012 at 2:35 pm | Permalink | Reply

      What of NH and Maine CD2?

      • No Tribe
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

        I think Romney could take those too. There is a scenario where the only of those five states Romney takes is Wisconsin, whereby NH/ME02 give him the margin of victory. Otherwise, they are not key.

        They are key though, especially if Virginia winds up in Obama’s column.

        There has been very little talk of ME02, but I expect it could be stronger Romney than NH. It was redistricted to get rid of a couple of townships that are strong Dem, and having gay marriage on the ballot is going to turn out social conservatives in the state.

        Romney could lose Virginia, and win Ohio/Iowa and be at 269 with ME02’s single EV.

    • nvClark
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 2:40 pm | Permalink | Reply

      That’s a pretty good description of why I keep saying that to me it’s no longer much of a question of if Romney is going to win but rather by how much. I keep asking myself questions along these lines though, if Romney is going to get at least two of IA, MN, WI, PA, and OH as you suggest, then what is my argument for why he wouldn’t get all of them? You can break things down into three categories of possibilities, either Obama is going to win big, or it’s a pretty much even horse race, or Romney will win big. Well I for one think the idea that Obama will win big is out of the question, and I personally think the even horse race is unlikely and that they are deliberately distorting the evidence to make it look that way. So my guess is we’re in the third category. And if were in the Romney wins big category, what are the reasons that he would win some states over others. I mean if he takes PA, why wouldn’t he take OH, and if he takes PA and OH, why not MN, and if he takes all three of those what is the chance that WI and IA are somehow on a completely different page particularly when in IA’s case their press (newspapers) are unanimous in endorsing Romney.

      • Posted October 30, 2012 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

        But what of Nevada?

      • No Tribe
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

        I’m not going to predict it, but it’s certainly plausible that Obama wins Ohio, and that Romney wins Pennsylvania. Obama has such a huge advantage campaigning in Ohio with the amount of federal funding he has dumped into the state, aside from the ads he’s dumped on Romney. Same thing goes with Wisconsin.

        In Wisconsin, I think people are underestimating how strong the ground game is of the GOP. Under the radar, Koch has dumped in many millions for a ground/data operation in the state. And the voter roles there are very different than ’08, especially in Milwaukee.

      • nvClark
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

        I’m not from NV so I have no special info, I just put that name in because it’s the first thing I focused on when I found this blog (my name isn’t really clark either). I do think the numbers in NV are really important to look at though because whether or not Romney wins NV pretty much comes down to the results in one county, and that county releases some pretty easy to parse early voting numbers. I ask myself the same questions though, if NV goes to Romney, or comes really close, and NV is blue and was last time, then why would other states that are less likely to go to Romney not also show similar improvements that would put them over their tipping points? Even if NV doesn’t go to Romney, if there are significant improvements there what is the likelihood that there won’t be corresponding improvements in other less blue states? To me NV is a good thermometer.

      • Svigor
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

        Pretty similar here. Though I’m basing a lot of that on what I read here. This place has been a crash course in tea leaf reading for me. I think the range is from a very narrow 0bama win on the left, to a landslide for Romney on the right, with the middle of the curve being a comfortable Romney win.

  9. edtitan77
    Posted October 30, 2012 at 2:34 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Devastating ad need to use Obamas cling to guns and Bibles quip as well in an ad too to cement the deal.

    Also probably need a deficit type ad for the suburbs.

  10. NHConservative
    Posted October 30, 2012 at 2:53 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Anyone see there are two polls for Oregon today showing only a +5 and +6 advantage to Obama and still not cracking 47%?

  11. No Tribe
    Posted October 30, 2012 at 2:58 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Oregon, 47/41 by The Oregonian. Interesting, nothing for Romney to do, given they vote by mail and its about done. This 6% margin will likely be the final margin, say– 51/45 and 4% for other.

    That compares to 57/40 in 2008.

    It’d be a 6% swing away from Obama, which happens to be about exact as what we are expecting nationally.

    • nvClark
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 3:02 pm | Permalink | Reply

      RE: “given they vote by mail and its about done”
      Oh man! do they release those numbers, and if so, when? Is it before ED?

      • nvClark
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

        If not, does anyone have any idea what time they release a count on ED? How crazy would it be to wake up and see Oregon already red?

      • nvClark
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

        Current Oregon numbers (if I’m reading this pdf correctly):
        2,206,403 Eligible Voter Total, 552,853 ballots returned
        874,748 Dem Eligible Voters, 244,608 ballots returned
        685,548 Rep Eligible Voters, 191,640 ballots returned
        the rest are all of the others from Libertarian to the Pacific Green Party to… these make up the rest of the results comprising the remaining eligible voters and ballots returned bringing the totals to 2,206,403 and 553,853.
        Results current through 10/29/2012
        http://oregonvotes.org/elections/doc/history/nov62012/Ballot_Return_Wksht_G12.pdf

    • Posted October 30, 2012 at 3:03 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I think it’ll do more than split for Romney among undecided. 50/46 or 49/47. Still likely Obama wins, but could be close especially if the electorate in Oregon goes 1 or 2 points more towards the GOP. It’s tight in Oregon.

  12. NHConservative
    Posted October 30, 2012 at 3:06 pm | Permalink | Reply

    It’s a good indicator of the deterioration of his campaign and the haunting 47%.

  13. John
    Posted October 30, 2012 at 3:16 pm | Permalink | Reply

    SurveyUSA poll just in shows Florida tied http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=7160c83f-98c8-4802-9758-bd492cdeb362 It is D+5 and shows 15% of Dems voting for Romney. Hard to see how Romney doesn’t win with those internals.

    • Posted October 30, 2012 at 3:25 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Florida won’t be D+5. More likely R+2 or better. Also shows 13% of Republicans voting for Obama. Romney up 5 with indies. They also oversampled early voters.

    • Dogfish
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 3:35 pm | Permalink | Reply

      SurveyUSA is notoriously unreliable

  14. Posted October 30, 2012 at 3:20 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Couple of things about the Nate Silvers. 1) I do not understand the methodology that the race according to his popular vote is razo thin about a point or so yet Romney has barely a 25% chance.

    and 2) those in the media that believe Nate Silver is dealing in exact science that is all about facts and undisputable evidence. This is where many challenge the climate change stuff. A lot of that is made up of theories and made up science and extrapolations. On Friday night Bill Maher said after Silver said that the GOP doesn’t like him that “well that’s what they do when confronted by FACTS AND SCIENCE” People in the media treat Silver as if his methods are pure factual and evidence based. They are statistical models based on HIS beliefs as to good polls, bad polls, what the local ground game is, registration, etc. All in all what Silver does is essentially a weather forecast. He uses other people’s facts and information and then uses his judgement and knowledge to make a forecast on what HE thinks WILL happen. His polls weights and methodology are not FACTS. They are his educated guess and judgement on what he believes will occur.

    The weather man looks at all the data and then uses his training and judgment to predict what they think will happen. If forecasting was fact based and exacting there would be no such thing as every station in town having a different weather report. If Nate Silver is wrong they wil treat it as if gravity had been disproven. They will come and claim cheating, stealing, bias polls, something because there is no way his SCIENCE can be wrong. But if he is right you will see him vaunted as if he has discovered relativity. His forecast will be treated as a new wave of science and facts and disagree with him if you dare.

    • Dogfish
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 3:36 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Shane, well said

    • Tom
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 3:51 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Actually Silver is simply a charlatan. He is ALWAYS right, let me explain. Osama has a 75% chance according to old Nate. Romney has a 25% chance. Romney wins, old Nate says “yes he had a 25% chance therefore I am right.” He can never lose with his “model” as one side always has a chance.

    • Todd
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 3:53 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Shane, take a look at jay cost’s twitter feed from yesterday. He, Sean Davis & Adrian Gray went a long way towards debunking Silver. A slight tweak in assumptions would vault Romney far ahead of Obama at this point and Sliver’s magical “black box” can easily be replicated with Outlook.

    • allthingsgeography1
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 5:07 pm | Permalink | Reply

      My thoughts on Nate Silver…I never had a chance to take stats in college but as a former meteorology student, I did have to deal with probabilistic forecasting a bit. It’s a difficult concept to grasp sometimes. The thing with probability is not necessarily strict yes-no but rather reliability. When one says there is a 25% chance of rain on a particular day, that means that if the forecast is perfectly reliable, then 25% of the time it should rain on days in which a 25% chance forecast is issued. If it’s 50%, then it should rain half the time a forecast for 50% is issued. It’s a forecast of confidence based on all available data. Reliability, of course depends on previous data of the same event occurring over and over again, lining it up with forecasts and seeing if there is a match up (again meaning 25% of the time, it rained on days in which a 25% forecast was issued, for example). The only thing that keeps me from falling for Nate Silver, even though he certainly has more expertise in Stats than I do is that his model (in my opinion) has not had an adequate number of elections to show that the probabilities are reliable. He basically has two elections under his belt (2008 and 2010). Those amount to two data points for the Democrat and Republican tickets each of which to measure the reliability of the probabilities involved. Here is a link to the “Reliability Diagram” that comes to mind: http://www.cawcr.gov.au/projects/verification/#Methods_for_probabilistic_forecasts

      You have to have a good amount of data to access the reliability of probabilities. Two elections don’t cut it. It’s easy to get good sample sizes in meteorology where you can to 24hr probability performance or 12hr probability performance, etc, then repeat for the same time frame. Elections occur every 2yrs (Presidential and generic party tickets for midterms), so you only get to do probabilities every 2yrs and that makes accessing the usefulness of them a serious issue in my opinion. He’s basically only generating his probabilities through polling numbers which are only a sample of what is happening in the electorate at the moment and not a projection into the future. Weather models (which ingest current observations throughout the atmosphere) at least have physics and mathematical principles behind them of which drives the deterministic and probabilistic forecasts (and the forecasts are rigorously analyzed for accuracy and reliability after the fact). Not to say Nate’s model doesn’t have mathematical principles behind it, but it seems to me (again, not a stats guy, so only decently educated opinion), that much more data is required to give the model more credibility on reliability and accuracy. It simply has not faced that kind of test yet. Two data points are simply insufficient.

      • Posted October 30, 2012 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

        well and in your line of study there are a finite number of factors that could impact what happens with weather. IE you know most of the possible variables that COULD happen.

        Silver even admits his system does not factor in, at least not quick enough, outside events such as terrorist attacks, surprising debate performances, etc. Elections are about people and anytime there are 130 MILLION humans involved the variables are unknown. Because there are national variables like debates, terrorist attacks, wars, etc….but the old saying All Politics are Local still holds true. What tickles the fancy of the Montana voters for a presidential candidate are not the same as in New York. Look at Coal country now us in the midwest, we care about the price of our energy but it is not our livlhood and it is not generation (meaning being anti-coal can offend generations of a family in that industry). So i do not see how statistical models can forecast a national election without some WILD levels of personal judgement, thoughts and guess work.

        Even in baseball with the stat craze of moneyball a hitter only has so many things that can happen…Hit, Walk or Out. Your variables are limited. Elections are circuses and hence why 3 pollsters polling the same population asking the same questions of the same state will get wildly different numbers.

  15. Vadim
    Posted October 30, 2012 at 3:20 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Maybe the folks on intrade should see this video:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/30/moveon_ad_has_old_lady_say_were_going_to_burn_this_motherfker_down.html

    Does this sound like a winning side? I hope they run this ad all day long….

    • No Tribe
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 4:31 pm | Permalink | Reply

      That is the most lame ad I’ve ever seen.

    • Fred S
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 6:15 pm | Permalink | Reply

      What a disgusting thing – produced by Michael Moore, why am I not surprised. They are really starting to fling the Hail Marys! Good sign that they know Romney has got it locked up.

  16. zang
    Posted October 30, 2012 at 3:26 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Just announced: Obama to survey storm damage with Chris Christie.

    Christie is giving Obama partisan cover to do this. I am beginning to wonder if Christie is deliberately trying to sabotage Romney.

    • Posted October 30, 2012 at 3:28 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I don’t see how the President actually doing his job is going to sway anyone.
      ~ Brittany

      • nvClark
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

        Agreed, but supposedly Christie was rumored to be considering a presidential bid here in 2012. I assume that if he wanted to and did not do so it was because he thought Obama would probably win and he would do better to keep his powder dry until 2016. But if Romney wins Christie won’t get another chance until 2020. I don’t know if that has anything at all to do with anything but to me Christie does have something of a conflict of interest.

      • displacedRhodeIslandConservative
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

        Agreed Brittany. I think that this “look presidential” stuff is relevant nor is it going to be seen by the right audience. I’m also not convinced there are actually “undecideds” left out there. My general feel now is that it isn’t so much a choice between BHO and Mitt as much as its BHO or not show up…thats’ why they continue to try to excite the relatively deflated base and are no longer really running any sort of campaign tht could be viewed positively by moderates. Seems more likely that they have given that up and are desperately trying to identify and locate the randos who had never voted before and get them to the booth ASAP.

      • Svigor
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 5:11 pm | Permalink

        Displaced, I tend to agree with you. Undecideds has a lot of different groups within that aren’t really undecided. Foremost among them the voters who are ready to vote 0 out but are waiting until the last minute for their “final answer” because they haven’t had long to vet Romney and who knows, maybe he’ll have a psychotic break before the election. Then there are the people who simply like keeping their business to themselves, playing coy with pollsters, etc. Then there are the “leaners,” who are almost certain to go one way or the other, but not quite there yet. Then there’s the probably small fraction who are sorta coin-toss about the whole thing.

        The upshot is, after 4 years of the media’s favorite president in the history of the galaxy, a voter in the “undecided” column is definitely no friend to the 0bama campaign.

    • Vadim
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 3:35 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Christie is definitely interested in running in 2016. He does not want to wait till 2020. It was pretty clear from the convention keynote address that he gave back in August. He also kept the speculation alive that he is on the VP short list

    • John
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 3:39 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Putting partisanship aside when it comes to the storm is the right and smart thing to do. Anything else would come across very negatively.

    • Posted October 30, 2012 at 3:43 pm | Permalink | Reply

      It’s an interesting choice to go to New Jersey to survey storm damage…when you could go to Virginia or other places.

      But in a time of disaster you do not say no to the President of the United States, period. If he calls and says I’m coming, you say Yes Sir Mr. President. Storms like this though don’t show off Obama, because unlike Katrina where the city and state are wiped out and the fed are doing everything. This is going to showcase New York and New Jersey governors and mayors, etc showing how they have this taken care of. The fed role at this point is access to dollars, loans, some equipment, etc. Christie will most certainly take credit for he and his people being ready, responding well to the storm and digging in to clean up. Obama gets to wear his POTUS jacket and look Presidential. But honestly, im jaded so grain of salt, this makes him look desperate that he has to go to a BLUE state with a Republican Governor to try get some sort of political points out of this. He can’t claim credit for anything because it will look desperate. He will only be able to tell New Jersians good job on prep, glad you are ok and you have the federal government’s support. He will slide in a NY Times/MSNBC call for this is why you have a federal government, etc.

      • zang
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

        Issue is it looks like Christie is going well over the top. Polite praise or thanks to the federal government, rather than effusive love to Obama personally, would be the proper response – unless he is looking to go out of his way to help Obama win the election. Christie’s praise is making headlines everywhere/

      • Posted October 30, 2012 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

        dont forget that Christie is a republican governor of a hardcore blue state….he faces re-election in 2 years and has to keep his job. He cant be a right wing bomb thrower and win.

        We do have to remember that while there is an election going on the bottom line is these guys are running FOR A JOB. And the job is predominantly stuff like this. So all campaigns and elections aside Christie and Obama are doing the jobs they are elected to do. It is okay to give praise where it is due when they do what they are supposed to.

      • nvClark
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

        Those are all really good points.

  17. Dogfish
    Posted October 30, 2012 at 3:37 pm | Permalink | Reply

    LM, I agree. I also think we gain control of the Senate based upon how strong Romney is running.

    Nov 7th should be a day of great joy and celebration.

    • RhodyKev
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 3:51 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Starting to plan the celebration for Tues night.

    • John
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 4:13 pm | Permalink | Reply

      It looks bleak for Brown in MA with today’s Suffolk poll showing him down 7 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html and trending worse. Same poll shows Romney down 31 soeven if he performs above expectations the coat tails will be almost non-existent.

      • Vadim
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

        I voted for Brown but only because the alternative is terrible and i want R majority in the Senate. That said, I gave him $0 for this campaign which was not the case back in 2010. I am upset with him for several key votes, and so are most of the conservatives. I will not be too upset if he goes down, even as much as I dislike Warren and think she is absolutely terrible.

      • NHConservative
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

        The left-wing Boston Globe also had the race tied yesterday and Romney down only 17 (not 32). I listen to talk radio two hours a day during my commute into MA and many pundits believe that Brown/Warren is still a dead heat. We shall see. I don’t honestly know why any sane citizen would vote for a college professor that is so far to the left. The government needs more moderate people to get things done instead of hard left and right. She is extremely to the left and sounds like a tape recorder with her “millionaires and billionaires” rhetoric, which is quite hypocritical when both she and her husband make a combined $750K a year a Harvard and she only teaches ONE class.

      • Vadim
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

        Rasmussen also shows that Brown is losing.

        http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_senate_elections/massachusetts/election_2012_massachusetts_senate

        I would think that both Suffolk and Rasmussen are better than the Globe poll. I agree that I cannot understand why anyone would vote for her. As I drive through Mass I see about the same number of yard signs. That said, Brown won in 2010 and there was a very low minority turnout. It would be very tough for him to win in the presidential year, especially given that Obama will get well over 50% in this very liberal state. Agree with you 100% on her hypocrisy. She is a millionaire herself.

      • NHConservative
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

        She drives me crazy and I don’t even live in MA, but I get all her commercials in NH from the Boston channels.

      • zang
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

        Basically, it is a Democrat state and they’re going to vote for the Democrat, not the better candidate. I think the same dynamic will work out in ND, but in the reverse.

      • Vadim
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

        Take a look at this. This man voted for Dodd-Frank!!! He avoided the Republican convention as much he could telling people that he is busy. Again, as much as I cannot stand her, he has not really earned another vote. I almost left the ballot blank on this one:

        Brown voted in favor of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, a measure generally opposed by conservatives and backed by congressional Democrats.
        Brown also voted in favor of Obama’s New START bill to reduce America’s stockpile of nuclear weapons, a move that security expert Frank Gaffney said puts the nation in danger.
        Brown was the first Republican to express support for the administration’s nominee to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency strongly opposed by conservatives.
        He was one of just five Republicans to vote for cloture on Obama’s jobs bill in February, and voted for final passage of the bill. He even praised Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Democratic Sen. John Kerry for what he termed their willingness to work across party lines on the measure.
        Conservative commentators including Glenn Beck have criticized Brown for his reluctance to go along with significant budget cuts.
        Brown has said that legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts is a settled issue and he does not seek to overturn it. He opposes a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He also said Roe v. Wade is settled law.
        In December Brown joined a handful of Republicans who broke with the Republican Party and voted to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the ban on openly gay military personnel.

      • zang
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

        Seriously, what do you want or expect? In MA? MA is about as left wing as imaginable. Republicans need to adapt to geography. Certainly, having a RINO in Utah or Texas is intolerable, but the GOP can have someone who is with them 40 to 50% of the time in MA or someone who is essentially a puppet of Harry Reid’s. Your choice.

      • Vadim
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

        Vote with Dems on small issues but not really big ones like Dodd-Frank or START. You cannot give up the core that makes you a conservative. Voting for wasteful jobs bills is not what we would want Republican senators to do. I understand social issues like marriage and don’t ask don’t tell, but national security like START is a terrible vote….

      • Guest
        Posted October 31, 2012 at 5:11 am | Permalink

        Not really. Lugar, after all, voted for it, and he is after all to Brown’s right.

  18. John
    Posted October 30, 2012 at 3:50 pm | Permalink | Reply

    The first debate on Oct 3rd is widely cited as the turning point for the Romney campaign. But if you look at the RCP graphs his rise actually started before that on Sep 30th and with the polls being after the fact probably a week or so before that (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html and select the 30 day tab at the bottom). The first debate likley accellerated Romney’s rise but I believe mid-late Sept is simply when most voters started paying close attention once summer activities are over, school is in session, etc. Romney’s trajectory has been generally positive for many months taking a slight dip after the Dem convention but his rise is continuing albeit slowly while Obama has stagnated at 47% for weeks.

  19. NHConservative
    Posted October 30, 2012 at 3:51 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I agree. There are so many “facts” here that point to R/R victory. Independents +8-20, GOP enthusiasm and turnout, R having over 50% in National polls and O unable to crack 47%, the historical undecideds that go 3-1 in favor of the challenger, the economy (pocketbook issues), O’s record, the unfavorability of Obamacare. There is obvious manipulation in many of the polls right based on all the data we parse through on this site. I live in NH and there’s a number of people itching to GOTV for R (I already have via Absentee). There is no enthusiasm here on the Dem side.. I drive down 40 miles into MA to work everyday, and again, I don’t see any O signs/stickers anywhere. I know signs and stickers don’t vote, but it clearly shows the lack of enthusiasm, even in the communist state of MA. I’m feeling more confident everyday, but like many of you, I don’t want to count my chickens before they hatch. GOTV, volunteer, donate, hit the social networks, everything you can to make this a referendum on Barak Obama on 11/6.

    • Svigor
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 5:16 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Do we have any proof of the undecideds break x-1 for the challenger thing? Nate Silver’s cult claims over and over that Silver has “debunked” this “myth.”

  20. Vadim
    Posted October 30, 2012 at 4:48 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Take a look at this. This man voted for Dodd-Frank!!! He avoided the Republican convention as much he could telling people that he is busy. Again, as much as I cannot stand her, he has not really earned another vote. I almost left the ballot blank on this one:

    Brown voted in favor of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, a measure generally opposed by conservatives and backed by congressional Democrats.
    Brown also voted in favor of Obama’s New START bill to reduce America’s stockpile of nuclear weapons, a move that security expert Frank Gaffney said puts the nation in danger.
    Brown was the first Republican to express support for the administration’s nominee to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency strongly opposed by conservatives.
    He was one of just five Republicans to vote for cloture on Obama’s jobs bill in February, and voted for final passage of the bill. He even praised Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Democratic Sen. John Kerry for what he termed their willingness to work across party lines on the measure.
    Conservative commentators including Glenn Beck have criticized Brown for his reluctance to go along with significant budget cuts.
    Brown has said that legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts is a settled issue and he does not seek to overturn it. He opposes a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He also said Roe v. Wade is settled law.
    In December Brown joined a handful of Republicans who broke with the Republican Party and voted to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the ban on openly gay military personnel.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: