Book of the Month

Shuts and Failures

by Michael Maiello

Articleman's picture

Forward, Indeed: Obama Sunk Mitt's Battleship

by Articleman 10/23/2012 - 12:46 am   |

Someone keep Mitt Romney out of Boca Raton.  Last time he was in town, it was all 47% and I'd be President if I were Mexican.  Tonight?  Oy.  You know how you can tell Barack Obama peeled the bark off of his debating opponent this evening?  Click on RealClearPolitics.com.  It's burying the snap polls about the debate.  (What debate?  There was a debate?)  Or look around the Internet -- Kudlow tweeted that Romney was on Valium, and Hannity is angry that Libya was not a topic this evening.  This was Denver in reverse -- Romney assuming the role of the front-runner who didn't want to disagree, and who accepted harsh criticisms without rebutting them.  Just as Romney won the CBS poll of undecided voters by 24 in Denver, President Obama won that poll tonight by 30.  It is hard to see after tonight how President Obama does not win re-election.

Coming into tonight, President Obama was leading narrowly by virtue of razor-thin advantages across Ohio, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Iowa.  His lead is thin because Governor Romney had made inroads from Denver among white independent voters, and working class female voters in particular.  Romney got there in Denver by a positive bearing, and a polite but consistent attack against an adversary who let him do it.  Judging from the polls, Denver conferred upon Romney an air of competency that convinced some middle-of-the-roaders that he was a man with managerial aptitude.  Tonight, President Obama's relentless unpacking of Romney's flip-flops (Afghanistan, Iran), stern schooling of him on basics (we have these things called aircraft carriers; bayonets and horses, anyone; no, we don't ask Pakistan for permission to get bin Laden; the 80s are calling, they want their foreign policy back), and firmer command of China and Romney's own record on the auto bailout, stripped away some of the plausibility that Romney seized so adeptly on October 3.  Simply put, Romney was more competent and promising during the first debate.  Yet Obama was more competent and commanding during the latter two.

Will this matter?  Absolutely.  Look at the Washington Post poll from earlier today.  The percentage of voters available left to persuade is small.  But the snap polls have shown Obama winning two debates in a row, and the last one more decisively.  There is no remaining event in the campaign that gives a ready opportunity for either side to pivot.  The dynamic is roughly locked in for Election Day, with minor shifts looming huge.  Obama needs to win Ohio.  He has led in almost every recent poll there, and his vote-share is close to 50.  There is nothing in this debate that could give Mitt Romney a closing edge, and there are things in it that make him seem risky ($7 trillion in spending), lacking command of facts (Syria and Iran don't share a border, in case you have travel plans, you might want to make a note of that), and most of all less competent, looking on like a deer in headlights while taking a deserved scolding from the President.

Additionally, Romney opened up a new line of attack.  Remember the movie Say Anything?  So does Mitt.  He told the President it was a mistake to set a date certain to leave Afghanistan -- but now he's jumped in with both feet.  It was dizzying hearing Romney adopt Obamaism on Syria, Iran, drones, Afghanistan.  Given that Romney is behind in Ohio right now by something like 14-8 with 22% of votes already cast, how is this meek me-too-ism going to help him get every last conservative to the polls in Ohio?  The same thing goes in Iowa.  Romney needs his base to turn out on Election Day in overdrive, and as a final motivation to them, he submitted meekly to a factual schooling by a President he largely supported.  Obama's campaign can attack the flip-flops, and Romney's base will not draw strength or motivation from his meekness, fumbling, or ignoring Libya tonight.

Senator Kerry had it right in his mid-debate tweet -- Obama sank Romney's battleship.  Romney had made great inroads among available independents, who were preponderantly white swing voters, in Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Ohio.  He needed every bit of that extraordinary progress to allow him to come to rough parity with the President.  Romney came from 6 down to about even, and was performing near the upper end of his potential performance, given the size of the gains he made among women voters, and white middle class voters.  Sound familiar?  John Kerry knows how that feels.  He came from 6 down to about even after a crushing debate win over George W. Bush.  The late deciders didn't break toward that challenger, but drifted back to a steady Commander-in-Chief, and stayed the course.  2004 broke out again tonight.  Look for a replay 15 days hence.  Obama will win the popular vote by Bush's 2004 margin, and by reclaiming Virginia, will win the electoral vote more comfortably.

Great take, A-Man.

And I'm delighted to hear it's 2004 again. You had me worried with the whole 2000 redux thing.

by Doctor Cleveland 10/23/2012 - 1:07 am

I was struck today by how it was not a good day of polling at all for Obama, and yet, giving full credence to the average of national polls, and the average of swing state polls, Obama would win anyway.  

It is unimaginable to me that Romney gained more in the middle, where he is maxed anyway, than he lost by puzzling and unmotivating his base with his supine performance tonight.

Like Chris Matthews, I found Obama's preparation on that 1917 ship line stunning.  It was like Obama knew Romney was going to throw a hanging curve over the outer half of the plate and was ready to hit it into the upper deck.

I predicted before the second debate that Obama would perform very well, because his back was to the wall.  True to form, the President's two best debate performances of his life were the last two.

by Articleman 10/23/2012 - 1:16 am (re: Doctor Cleveland)

I think Obama won decisively and I am glad he did but the being-ready-for-the-bayonet line doesn't amaze me. Romney has brought up increasing the size of the navy before and I am pretty sure he used the same statement. Maybe because it was just another expand-the-military part of his stump speech and it wasn't a lie or a flip flop it escaped much attention, and since Obama didn't really want it as an issue it wasn't made an issue but it was a reasonably good bet that he would say it again tonight.  He said it in a way that set up Obama's retort perfectly. He could made the case not to shrink the Navy in a way that would have sounded reasonable to a lot of people. What a bunch of jerks they are that are within a few percentage votes of winning. 

 When Romney went first tonight I thought he had made the same stupid mistake again of giving Obama the last word. Romney though was the last to speak.

by A Guy Called LULU 10/23/2012 - 1:45 am (re: Articleman)

Agree with your overall assessment.  On the Navy, Romney was clearly playing for votes around Newport News, Virginia.  Looking that weak in the rest of the debate probably cost him more than the attempted pandering got him there.

by Articleman 10/23/2012 - 2:30 am (re: A Guy Called LULU)

The President did his job well tonight. The bayonets and horses line was pitch perfect, it was the sound bite of the evening. It was a skunking. It was a terrible thing to watch because you could actually see the pain in Mitt's face, he knew he was blowing it. Do you think he ever wondered why he listened to the Bush War Mongers? Those were the people who failed to adequately prepared their candidate for this debate.  And while those men are masters of propaganda, who could have guessed that they would believe all the lies they made up  He was ill-served by those people, but he should have known they couldn't be trusted in the first place. 

All of that with the President being on-top of his game tonight,  he rawked hard, he owned Mitt Romney over and over again. It was a thing of beauty.

by tmccarthy0 10/23/2012 - 1:37 am

I thought between challenging Obama on Libya in the last debate, and his pummeling tonight when he attempted to distort, Romney's plausibility took a hit.  Obama's performance was extremely good.  

Every minute spent on the auto bailout wounds Romney in Ohio.  But I thought the worst moment of all three debates was Romney's chirpy, sunny view of China as good, hard competing folks, who value free trade.  Does he realize that white working class folks in the Rust Belt, many of whom are sympathetic to unionism and who may work in trades or manufacturing are going to decide the election?  I thought that thirty seconds was hideous for him.

by Articleman 10/23/2012 - 1:57 am (re: tmccarthy0)

The other weird thing Romney said, that I noticed was his wanting to indict Ahmadenijad for inciting genocide, what was that all about? And that Syria is Iran's border to the Sea? What? That was bizarre.

You are right about the auto bailout bruhaha, that is a losing proposition for Romney. When he outright lied about the op-ed he wrote, people couldn't stop linking to it. Once again Romney was shown to be lying.  It's weird, because those type of statements are easily fact checked, but Romney chose to obfuscate anyway. Why? I don't understand why anyone would do that.

Anyway, bayonets and horses, yes we have fewer of those.

by tmccarthy0 10/23/2012 - 9:27 am (re: Articleman)

That's unfair.  After the building of the Assad-Ahmedinejad tunnel beneath Iraq, Syria is Iran's path to the sea.  Well, except for Iran already bordering the sea.

I think Romney's point about the auto bailout was that he favored bankruptcy, and sort of wished the auto industry well.  I think he did not write the famous headline Let Detroit Go Bankrupt, but given that it is a fair summary of the piece, that sort of goes in the "other than that Mrs. Lincoln how did you like the show" department.

by Articleman 10/23/2012 - 10:03 am (re: tmccarthy0)

Romney didn't write the headline.  And, of course, he argues even in the piece that the companies could have been reorganized in a more typical bankruptcy proceeding.  Problem is, Romney's plan would have relied on private financing and back then, there wasn't any because the capital markets were frozen.  What did he expect? TARP funded banks would inject equity into GM?  Hardly feasible.

by Michael Maiello 10/23/2012 - 4:13 pm (re: Articleman)

Detroit:  je me souviens.

by Articleman 10/23/2012 - 4:29 pm (re: Michael Maiello)

I've been waiting for an explanation of the Iran/Syria/sea thing. I suspected he garbled something from a lecture from neo-con advisors, and meant the Mediterrenean. Because Israel and neocons have made a big deal in the past when Iranian warships have turned up in the Mediterrenean, and anchored @ Syria, I believe. But the thing is-I looked it up--they have done that in the past by going through the Suez Canal, and one cannot easily move a ship across Syrian land to get to the Mediterrenean.

Well, finally, there's a attempt to figure this out by Glenn Kessler @ WaPo:

[....] This is the explanation provided by the Romney campaign:  “It is generally recognized that Syria offers Iran strategic basing/staging access to the Mediterranean as well as to terrorist proxies in the Levant.  This is a large reason why Iran invests so much in Syria.”

The campaign also noted that the Boston Globe had looked into this statement at the time of the Arizona debate. 

The Globe noted that “given that Iran borders the sea, it seems to be an odd claim that Syria is Iran’s route to the sea.” The newspaper noted that Iran is able to reach the Mediterranean through the Suez Canal. But it said that “Romney’s comments are more accurate than they first seem,” citing a news report that Iran was building an army base in Syria and quoting an expert on the importance of Syria to Iran.

 We also checked with other experts, many of whom confessed to being puzzled by Romney’s comments. Tehran certainly uses Syria to supply the militant groups Hezbollah and Hamas, but that has little to do with the water. The relationship with Syria could also effectively allow Iran to project its power to the Mediterranean and the border with Israel.

 But does that really mean, “a route to the sea”?

So it really looks like a case of him garbling and twisting talking points he heard from neo-con advisors.

Or maybe someone like Sheldon Adelson! The Sheldon Adelson explanation would also explain the garbled genocide/Ahmadinejad thingie for sure.

by artappraiser 10/23/2012 - 8:47 pm (re: tmccarthy0)

Romney is a smart man but no matter how hard he crammed for an exam on a subject he knows little about, he was bound to make mistakes.

If Obama had caught it and called him out he would have had to explain it and I doubt he could. It could have destroyed him and moved the polls in a major way. Now its just going to be spun by his crew and fall down a memory hole. /sigh

by ocean-kat 10/24/2012 - 12:37 am (re: artappraiser)

I think this is spot on AA. Thanks for the link.

 

by tmccarthy0 10/24/2012 - 9:17 am (re: artappraiser)

Great headline... a picture of Mitt with "You Sank My Battleship".

If this will help the president get more 'likely' voters to the polls, then I agree he's going to win.

It seems that some of those people who have a hard time making up their minds have watched and waited for these debates to be over before deciding who they will vote for, or to recognize that they want to get out and vote for the person they were already leaning toward.

My daughter will working to get 'likely' voters to vote for the president in CO.

by synchronicity 10/23/2012 - 1:38 am

The polling in CO is mixed; what is your sense of it compared to 2008?

by Articleman 10/23/2012 - 1:51 am (re: synchronicity)

At this point its unclear.  The president has the votes out there if he can get the people to the polls and vote is what it seems to me. 

I think this debate will increase enthusiasm and turnout a bit. 

Maybe Clinton, the president, and Bruce should do an event together in CO

Actually I think it is the Latino voters that really make a difference in CO. 

If they turn out to vote in decent numbers, the president will win.

by synchronicity 10/23/2012 - 3:45 am (re: Articleman)

That seems to have been true in 2010 without the President on the ballot.

by Articleman 10/23/2012 - 9:19 am (re: synchronicity)

I hope that Obama's troops are strong in Florida and Ohio for election day to get out the vote or earlier to help people turn in absentee ballots - according to reports dem enthusiasm is lacking and many young people are not that motivated.

He done good tonight - Romney must have sweated (literally) a pint at least - it was sad.

I only wish we had a debate where it was only about domestic social issues (healthcare, women, medicaid/medicare, etc.).

I'm hoping polls tip in our favor big time in next two weeks!  (Of course, the Donald has promised big bad news bulletin - heavy on the bull - tomorrow, so be ready for announcement that Romney, not Obama, won the coveted spot on Celebrity Apprentice - OMG, Obama will be so upset.)

As I stated in dd's post, SNL is no doubt having prop people scrounge up bayonets along with old time navy uniforms.

A-man, great post and thanks for all your hard work on the polling, et al.  Much appreciated.

by Aunt Sam 10/23/2012 - 1:59 am

Hi Sam.  Ohio early voting tends to suggest Obama enthusiasm, but 2008 was a once-in-a-lifetime election.  Tonight probably helps in Florida.  The tell on this one is coming in polls by the weekend.  If it stays as it is or shifts even modestly up for Obama, it's great news for him this late.  

by Articleman 10/23/2012 - 2:29 am (re: Aunt Sam)

  Romney hasn't adopted Obamaism on Syria, since he (Romney) wants to send arms to the rebels. Obama wants to keep out of it, as he should have done regarding Libya.

by Aaron Carine 10/23/2012 - 9:50 am

He wants Assad gone, and thus favors the Arab Spring he doesn't favor.  Your point seems to be that Romney favors doing in Syria some form of what Obama did in Libya. Not a sharp distinction, even taken on your terms.

by Articleman 10/23/2012 - 10:05 am (re: Aaron Carine)

Sure the world is not better off because NATO supported an indigenous revolt in Libya to get rid of Gaddaffi, an interesting sort of man.

by NCD 10/23/2012 - 10:14 am (re: Aaron Carine)

Well done!

It will be interesting to see the assessments as far as this last debate a few days from now.

But there are several pundits this morning who seem to agree with you.

On the other side, McCain is on right now talking about 'cheap shots'.

Now there is an example of an old man who loves his bayonet.

No one has made more cheap shots than Mitt over the last two years.

by Richard Day 10/23/2012 - 10:03 am

Well, A-Man, I'm all in for Obama and I couldn't have been more proud of him than last night. At some point, you have to sit back and say we've fought the good fight, the rest is baked into the cake. I don't see how Romney gets any traction from this point forward. One is left with the question, "Who is this guy?" Anything he says now will be scrutinized---what does he mean? Does he really mean it? The flip flopper charge was taken to the next level---when you confuse your friends and enemies on your foreign policy, there are real world consequences.

I thought the problem with the first debate had to do with leadership qualities, especially sticking up for oneself, taking care of business when the chips are down. Obama handed Romney the role of leader in the first debate and took it back last night. I thought the target audience last night was women, but I also think it was white men---to prevent any further erosion there and perhaps win back a few in places like Ohio.

I don't know any male who has ever served in the military, ever worn the uniform of a cop or fireman, or any guy who has ever donned a mask and crawled into a dirty tank or down a coal shaft who could honestly look at Mitt Romney and say they respected his manhood. After attacking Obama for a year, Romney rolled over and refused to stand up for his previous positions. I don't know if working people will vote for Obama, but they are going to have to swallow a lot of skepticism about motives and manliness to vote for Romney.  


 

by Oxy Mora 10/23/2012 - 10:04 am

The thing is, women want the economy fixed just like men do.  I think the muscular, attacking Romney in debate one appealed both to women and men -- they want a competent fixer guy in there.  Obama was more assertive and in command in debate three.  I don't think it appealed only to one gender.  I suspect he gets a few undecideds and lures a smaller number back outright.  The difference is that there are fewer voters forming opinions, and they are more likely to be lower-information folks.  But in that smaller and narrower domain, Obama surely helped himself a bit.  Based on yesterday's polling, a bit likely gets it done.

If you look at the internals of the polls of Ohio, when they lean the pure undecideds and third-party voters, they break for Romney, but something like two-thirds of a percent to one percent or just more of the total.  Assuming those folks vote in equal numbers, that's not a good enough last minute break to give Romney Ohio, and I think last night will move the floor a touch on regular voters and curb the supposed universal tendency for undecideds to break to the challenger, which of course didn't happen in 2004.

by Articleman 10/23/2012 - 10:10 am (re: Oxy Mora)

Thanks. There was an article, somewhere, which noted movement towards Obama among middle age white males who voted for McCain in '08---all of which I assume is baked in.

Also saw a reference in one poll to 7% of the sample being newly registered so didn't even vote in 2008.

by Oxy Mora 10/23/2012 - 10:35 am (re: Articleman)
Mitt's going for the despondent voters who woke up in debate 1. Now if Mitt walks out of the stadium on 2feet theydont care what he said - Conservative lobbyists will clinch the deal in the end. It's all good - for Romnesia. Expect a run on Etch-a-sketch this week - hottest stock tip.
by PeraclesPlease 10/23/2012 - 1:33 pm

This still seems to be accurate - GOP goes on spinning every Romney head-nod as statesmanship, every Obama retort as condescending, and it's a question whether voters pay attention.

by PeraclesPlease 10/24/2012 - 2:53 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

Guess what article is  currently # 1 on the New York Times "most viewed" list?

Let Detroit Go Bankrupt
By MITT ROMNEY
Published: November 18, 2008

Note that it doesn't even appear on the "most emailed" or "most blogged" lists. This suggests people are looking at it on their own., not prompted by a blogger or an email..

by artappraiser 10/23/2012 - 6:09 pm

Despite the movement to Romney, I do not think he can win Ohio, and that is why.  I do not think he can win Nevada.  If I am right about that, he needs to sweep VA, WI, and CO.  He could then lose IA or NH then but not both.  This is why Romney needs to win by 3 or so. 

Ohio may be more significantly more discrepant from the national trend than the .7% or so Nate's model thinks now.

by Articleman 10/23/2012 - 6:32 pm (re: artappraiser)

Well, I think Romney kinda sunk his own battleship without any help from the President. When Romney mumbled his geographical genius about Syria sharing a border with Iran, I thought to myself, aha! And there's Romney's "I can see Russia from my backyard" Palin moment.

I don't know if anyone else watching thought the same thing, but I hope so.

I am not an undecided voter, but I am an independent voter so when I watch the debates my mind is tuned to what an independent voter wants to hear. I'm not listening for props to the Party. Romney's debate minutes were filled with platitudes. I mean, dude, I already know America is great. Give me meat instead of gravy.

But, when Romney flubbed geography, I thought, whoo boy. My suspicions were confirmed...whotta foreign policy dumbass. I have to believe a lot of other independent voters thought the same thing.

Mayday! Mayday!

by flowerchild 10/23/2012 - 7:18 pm

It will be very interesting to see if the polls continue to show Obama leads in the key swing states by the weekend.  Obama had some good national polls yesterday (those have performed under the state polls for him all year), but the trend in them was down about a point over the weekend, which could be a small post-second-debate bounce subsiding.  Obama needs to keep things about where the state polling has been over the last ten days, and we won't have a data set on whether what we saw last night matters for a while.

by Articleman 10/23/2012 - 7:24 pm (re: flowerchild)

1st reply eaten by the software. Take II. 

Was anybody else a bit freaked out by Romney's constant swallowing and mouth movements last night, while Obama was talking? They had him on split camera when I tuned in, and he was constantly swallowing and wriggling his mouth around. I've seen lots of people under the lights, under stress, before, and this was unusual. 

It struck me that he looked medicated. Seriously. Not trying to smear the guy, but it almost freaked me out. I just started to feel like, "The United States is going to elect a guy who really can't handle the stresses of the job. Which means, somebody else is actually gonna be pulling the levers."

Did anybody else see any comments on this today? I'd swear, Mitt was chilled down to cope with this. He's a classic beta-male, I think, someone who actually doesn't like confrontation, but feels that he has to live up to all this "leadership" stuff, and to take "tough" decisions on things like foreign policy. 

Anybody else see or read anything about this?

by quinn esq 10/23/2012 - 7:25 pm

There were comments about how sweaty he looked. I can't point to where the comments are though. Sorry.

I watched in bits and pieces. Romney looked very ill at ease. Funny...in the first debate I commented that I thought he had forgotten to take his Ritalin that morning.

 

by flowerchild 10/23/2012 - 8:08 pm (re: quinn esq)

The first debate I thought he was manic; the second debate I thought he was a bit too combo of manic and mellow, but last night I thought he was stoned and OMG he was sweating and a bit disoriented, at least that was my impression (as well as a vacant stare at times during split screen when Obama was speaking).  So, yes, I noticed the swallowing and his adam's apple was rapidly in play - he was either taking anti anxiety meds or ........

by Aunt Sam 10/23/2012 - 8:09 pm (re: quinn esq)

Someone else will definitely be 'pulling the levers'. And the ones who will will not be beta males but alphas, Bolton, Eliot Abrahms and batshit crazy neo-cons. Romney couldn't even smoothly handle the decision of what to say in his Olympics interview without blowing it. He will be a total disaster in the White House, and put the the US back on the international and economic trajectory Bush had us on, free fall.

by NCD 10/23/2012 - 8:23 pm (re: quinn esq)

Remember when Bush was suspected of wearing a wire during his debates--the mysterious bulge? Those were the days. I think that's when I started reading political blogs.

by Michael Wolraich 10/23/2012 - 9:21 pm (re: quinn esq)

Josh mentioned him sweating buckets on his live blog of the debate, as well as other sites i read. I don't have tv here in the middle of Coronado National Forest so I had to watch on the NBC feed on an old lap top. I wasn't able to see it on the low quality feed.

by ocean-kat 10/24/2012 - 12:29 am (re: quinn esq)

I thought he was letting us in on secret Mormon ritual behavior - they do gasp and gulp like Gollum in the underground lake, no? (cf. The Hobbit, Cliff Notes edition)

by PeraclesPlease 10/24/2012 - 12:35 am (re: quinn esq)

Cross posting from my post "Who won ?" it's worrying that  " Public Policy Polling ", whom Art Appraiser quotes in a comment to Richard Day's  Gandhi etc ,also reports  that Independents (20% of those polled) answered.........

                                                                     Romney            Obama

 

Who won the debate ?                                        40                    55

Now more likely to vote for                               47                    32

less likely                                                            35                    48

 Presumably  the debaters 3 basic objectives were:  encourage their own base, discourage their opponent's and capture a higher share of the Independents. This  suggests Obama failed with respect to  #3. 

 

The devil is in the details so here they are

 

More/less likely to    Overall     Dems   Reps     Independents

vote for Obama                                                  & "Others"

 

More                            37             65       7                     32

Less                             31             11      46                    48

Didn't change              30             25      42                     20

Not sure                        2                         4

 

More/less like to

vote for Romney

More                           38           12         66                     47

Less                            31           60           6                     35

Didn't change             26            28         29                    18

Not sure                        1            1                                    1 

 

by Flavius 10/24/2012 - 9:40 am

The question is whether the "more likely to vote for" question trends higher or lowerr than the group's prior stated preferences.  That answer you cite is a wash in a sample where Romney led among independents by +14 or so.  

The better questions are whether true undecideds break Romney's way from that, and whether the narrative of winning the debate firms Obama up by the weekend, when the impact of debate coverage will be priced into the polls.  

Remember that Romney essentially got a direct observation bump from Denver, but essentially a follow-on bump from those who saw the received wisdom that he won from the media afterward.

by Articleman 10/24/2012 - 9:56 am (re: Flavius)

Yeah, "compared to what ",as the joke goes .

So if Romney already led by that amount among this cohort then this particular piece of data is not ominous in itself.Except that, if he did , that's ominous enough.

I agree about the received wisdom..As I wrote at the time  Obama acquitted himself well enough in content and compartment But Romney,who didn't,was appointed front runner chiefly on the basis of behaving rudely. Sadly that then forced Obama to adopt that same agressiveness in the two later debates.

Oh,well.

 

by Flavius 10/24/2012 - 1:07 pm (re: Articleman)

There are polls showing the debate making a slight bit of difference in decisionmaking, others like this saying no.  I think the question is best answered after the perception that Obama won cycles through the electorate this week.  I suspect it's a push, but a push may be enough -- indeed should be enough -- for Obama to win. 

The Ohio SUSA poll showing 26% have voted, and heavily for Obama, is great.  Romney needs a hard break toward him among those who haven't voted yet, and I don't think there are enough available votes in Ohio. 

Romney was quite rude in the first debate at times.  It had the almost humorous effect of promoting brusque and interruptive behavior in each successive debate, the last being the least afflicted with it.  I pretty much hated that, but it's hard to moderate these things.

by Articleman 10/24/2012 - 1:18 pm (re: Flavius)

Sadly some probably significant portion of the viewers have been taught e.g. by Trump's trumpery to  confuse rudeness with strength and Obama had no option but to reply in kind.

by Flavius 10/24/2012 - 3:17 pm (re: Articleman)

It will be interesting to see how Mourdock's comment about rape and pregnancies will play out.  Just this week, ads by Romney supporting Mourdock started running (will these continue?) here in Indiana.  In swing states like Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado, and Iowa, where scratching out every vote counts, this can be the kind of thing that gives Obama a slight tick up in the percentage.  It might disappear in next news cycle or it might have some legs given Aikin's remark and that Mourdock (the tea party guy who knocked out Luger) is already in tight race with the Democrat.  That this comment could send a Dem to the Senate from Indiana is a big deal about who controls the Senate.  And the more the discussion is about Republicans and their views on abortion, the more it hurts Romney.

by Another Trope 10/24/2012 - 9:07 am

Will Mitt be damaged by Mourdock's rape comment? Is the question of the day at Politico's Arena page. 

One of the first comments from Peter Ubertaccio

Adding to the difficulties of the GOP is the fact that the message Mourdock is sending is exactly what suburban women swing voters who have yet to make up their mind will not want to hear.

by Another Trope 10/24/2012 - 9:38 am (re: Another Trope)

You know how I feel about Donnelly, but oh my gosh is Mourdock a thousand times worse. I hate being from a state where the choices always suck. I get that we want Donnelly to win. But if he does, we're gonna remember Evan Bayh more fondly.

by Orlando 10/24/2012 - 11:04 am (re: Another Trope)

Donnelly may make everyone Bayh-curious in retrospect.

by Articleman 10/24/2012 - 11:09 am (re: Orlando)

There is probably some Republican in the Indiana House drafting a bill right now to make such curiosity illegal.

by Another Trope 10/24/2012 - 1:22 pm (re: Articleman)

I think a Donnelly win also is another reminder to the Republican establishment that they need to find a way to limit the power of the "tea party" crazies, rather than encouraging them.  One might even see the like of Hannity begin to dial it back as it becomes clear the far end of the spectrum in their base will only hurt them in the long run.

by Another Trope 10/24/2012 - 1:20 pm (re: Orlando)

Gallup now showing a +4 move to Obama from its Romney +7; today Obama is down 3 in Gallup, and back ahead narrowly among registered voters, which understates everyone else's national numbers.  Weirdly, Gallup shows a 53/42 fav/unfav, which would ordinarily be good for re-election.

This is contra weekend polling showing Obama sliding 2 in IBD, Ras, and WaPo.  Will be interesting to see if these data start correlating better by the weekend.

by Articleman 10/24/2012 - 1:22 pm

Obama is up 5 in new Time poll, 49-44. Obama way ahead in early voting and those who haven't voted yet split even. 
Oct 22-23

by Oxy Mora 10/24/2012 - 5:19 pm

Latest Comments

more