dagblog - Comments for "Why is this man Romney even close?"

That's how I'm reading it.

DF — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 16:41:10 +0000

That's how I'm reading it. An Obama win this year strongly suggests a third consecutive term for Democrats in the White House for several compelling reasons.

The Right has worked hard to

AmericanDreamer — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 13:48:52 +0000

In reply to Incredible, isn't it? If we

The Right has worked hard to construct and market its alternative reality and has had a fair amount of success at it, obviously. We've had much discussion here at dag about reality bubbles--theirs and, we sometimes recognize, ours as well (not saying the two types of bubbles are comparably related to what humans can figure out about real reality, or that the consequences of the two broad types of bubbles are equally good, bad or benign--neither is the case). And we've discussed how easy it is for individuals--easier given the degree of access to various sources of information or misinformation) to choose the news we prefer to believe and avoid exposure to information and views they find unpalatable, or think we would.

Plus, during frustrating times many seem to feel a need to find someone to blame exclusively, or at least a lot more than anyone else. It's understandable that many choose for that purpose the person they perceive as the most powerful.

Plus, as a cultural observation, I believe the influence of people like Rand and other community-deniers, when combined with the ability of extremely powerful interests who have made it their business to promote contempt and disrespect for all things government, has had a long-term corrosive effect in weakening such bonds as can hold 300 million+ people in a country such as ours together for at least certain purposes. For some people, government is always bad and always at fault (except when it benefits them narrowly and except when it otherwise is not), so whomever is the "anti-government" candidate draws their emotional sympathy and support.

One other factor I'll toss out that I've not seen discussed much is that as a society we are, relative to other cultures and societies, highly optimistic about the future. Not now, relative to how we often have been historically. But, consistently and for a long time, more so than the people of most other societies. Barbara Ehrenreich wrote a book called Bright-Sided which basically makes the case that our (relatively speaking) extreme optimism is actually a liability to us in a number of important ways. When I hear Clint Eastwood's "argument" (similar to that of sometimes dag denizen and possible lurker for all I know "kgb") that amounts to "We're not happy with how things are or who we have as our President; therefore, let's fire the President" I am left to wonder whether Ehrenreich has a point. I guess if you're Clint Eastwood, who gets elected President isn't really going to make a major difference in your life circumstances. Not so clearly the case for many citizens of modest, limited means who are far more vulnerable than he is.

I heard a similar argument in the context of discussion about the Iraq war's advisability. For a fair number of people, their unthoughtful justification was: Saddam is an evil dictator so, therefore, let's get rid of him. This argument assumes that things of course could not be worse if Saddam was removed. Iraq was an artificially constructed powder keg consisting of 3 tribes nominally held together as a nation-state by terror and force. Too few pressing the case for that war seemed to give much of any thought to whether and how it might be possible for the people who lived in Saddam's Iraq to make their way in a post-Saddam world.

No matter how bad things are, they can almost always be worse, hard as that can be to believe at times. A heavily optimistic disposition does not change that reality. So we have a fair number of our fellow citizens who, on account of that type of a basically optimistic "things couldn't be worse if we make a change" outlook--and also, differently, the outlook borne of desperation that arrives at the same conclusion--will vote for a change on that basis.

That's about the best I can do as an attempt at identifying some major factors contributing to Romney having a chance at this point. So wish the situation were not this precarious. Electing a lying scumbag plutocrat as our president is the kind of "cure" that would only make our particular diseases worse.

Incredible, isn't it? If we

Ramona — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 13:10:30 +0000

In reply to I'm trying not to fret,

Incredible, isn't it? If we lived in the 19th century, when news didn't travel fast and we weren't able to watch these bozos in action every day, I might be able to understand this kind of ignorance. But we live in the fast-track 21st century and we can see it and hear it all almost instantaneously. That's what makes me crazy. It's all out there and they're either not believing it or refusing to consider it. And I can't figure out why.

"Errant Gingrich email:

AmericanDreamer — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 09:58:47 +0000

In reply to Why is this man Romney even close?

"Errant Gingrich email: 'Obama is Going to Win'", Sarah Parnass, ABC New online, yesterday:

http://news.yahoo.com/errant-gingrich-email-obama-going-win-174518235.html

Key is to watch out for that 3rd term...

I'm trying not to fret,

stillidealistic — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 06:05:47 +0000

In reply to Why is this man Romney even close?

I'm trying not to fret, Ramona, but when I sit and think about it, my head just wants to explode. I am absolutely sick to my stomach that so many people have bought this guy's BS. He is a spoiled, narcissistic, liar who cares only about winning this prize and is willing to say whatever he needs to say, and do whatever he needs to do to to make it happen.

I can only hope that enough people will come to their senses and then get to the polls to keep him from winning.

I'm seriously disgusted with my fellow Americans.

You really cannot trust any

cmaukonen — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 04:11:24 +0000

In reply to Why is this man Romney even close?

You really cannot trust any of the polls theses days because their methodology is so completely fucked up.

For one thing they leave out nearly everyone who only has a cell phone and those they do call usually do not answer numbers they do not have in their phone lists.

For another thing the response rates are only about 9%.

They do not poll non-english speaking people.

Or those with VOIP phones.

or the hearing impaired.

In other words the results are generally from those who have land line phones. Mainly old people.

Read all this in another blog. And I believe it is pretty much on the mark.

Why is Romney close? Step

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 19:30:35 +0000

In reply to Why is this man Romney even close?

Why is Romney close? Step back and consider the big picture for a moment. Obama has governed over a torpid economy for four years. Judging by history, he should be losing--regardless of whether he bears any responsibility for the economic state.

So the question might well be, "Why is this man Obama even close?" And that's just what Republicans have been asking themselves for months.

And the answer is that Romney is a terrible candidate, the least bad of an even more terrible primary slate (with the possible exception of Huntsman). Moderate Republicans have been banging their heads against the wall in frustration all year long.

So take heart in the fact that the GOP may well have missed an opportunity to take the White House and the Senate.

PS Fwiw, voters are not ignoring the candidates' responses to the disaster. Obama will probably see a post Sandy-post.

Romney on FEMA as of

DF — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 19:09:13 +0000

In reply to Why is this man Romney even close?

Romney on FEMA as of yesterday:

“I believe that FEMA plays a key role in working with states and localities to prepare for and respond to natural disasters,” Romney said in a statement from his campaign. “As president, I will ensure FEMA has the funding it needs to fulfill its mission, while directing maximum resources to the first responders who work tirelessly to help those in need, because states and localities are in the best position to get aid to the individuals and communities affected by natural disasters.”

Does Obama have an ad showing Romney's FEMA comments from the primary debates yet? They should.

Also, I have to jump in and

DF — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 19:00:19 +0000

In reply to Why is this man Romney even close?

Also, I have to jump in and say something else about the Romney quote from the debate you highlighted. It's all kinds of wrong. Debt is an asset on one balance sheet, a liability on another. Too many Democrats speak in the same terms of leaving debt to future generations, including Obama. It's wrong. The net change in wealth for future generations is zero. It's just not even the right way to think or talk about the national debt. Dems, including Obama, need to stop it.

That said, when the chips are down would you rather have FDNY looking out for you or Xe? Maybe Haliburton?

Breathe, Ramona! Romney lost

DF — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 18:31:43 +0000

In reply to Why is this man Romney even close?

Breathe, Ramona! Romney lost his mo' on Oct. 12th. He's no longer ahead in national polls. He's been getting creamed in the state polls. And you're right to observe the potency of that image of Obama and Christie, who gave the keynote at the RNC:

That's the same guy who, less than two weeks ago, said this was a President who was grasping in the dark for the light switch of leadership, but just couldn't find it. Now he says the President is great.

As I've been pointing out as often as possible, the Princeton Election Consortium called the EC in 2004 and was one vote off in 2008. They do an average of state polls. They're predicting an Obama win at 96%+ likelihood with 312 EVs today. That's up from 303 yesterday.

At any rate, Mitt Romney is not closing in on the home stretch. Big Mo' has been on Obama's side since the 12th. The chance that this trend will reverse in less than a week is increasingly small.

Also, you're right to observe that the press has been complicit in fomenting a Romney candidacy. That sucks, but that's them trying to invent reality, not reality itself.