President Obama led the race every day, in both the popular vote and electoral vote, since the moment Mitt Romney won his party’s nomination. His lead grew after the DNC and shrunk after the Denver debate dud, but it was always there. National polls that suggested otherwise were wrong.
Intelligent readings of the polls were incredibly accurate. Will cable news still cherry pick polls four years from now to push false narratives? Probably.
Obama benefited from weak opponents in 2008 and now. If the Republicans had a more attractive ticket, they probably would have won this time around. (Of course, putting together an attractive duo when you have to pander to wingnuts isn’t easy.) You’ll hear plenty of pundits claiming America has become a liberal country, but I don’t agree. The current GOP extremism came awfully close and a more traditional brand of conservatism would have probably been a winner. Let’s remember that Team Obama was better in every way organizationally than its opposition and it needed to be. It’s still a conservative country.
But that may not be the case four years from now. Many Latino teens, part of the fastest-growing population, will have aged into the voting pool by then. Unless the Republicans seriously adjust their policies, they could lose this bloc for several election cycles.
Paul Ryan ultimately had little impact. He was a poor selection. Romney knew Ryan’s policies would be troubling, so why choose him only to hide him? Either Marco Rubio or Bob Portman would have been better picks. The former may have delivered Florida.
Romney’s strategy in Ohio was puzzling. Because of his reaction to the auto bailout, it was going to be a steep climb. But he absolutely had to have this state. There was no way around it. Why let Obama have 100 more field offices in Ohio? Would not go all in?
A lot of people owe Nate Silver an apology. It’s funny that Silver got his start as a stats guru in baseball, since many sports and political pundits have similarly reacted to logic and math with ad hominem attacks and general ignorance.
That sure is an incredibly ugly piñata hanging sadly at the empty Romney celebration. Oh wait, that’s Karl Rove.
I think you know how I feel about Presidential debates. They were very important in the 19th-century when there was no true mass media, and there needed to be an event which concentrated opinions, ideas and arguments. They were somewhat important for much of the 20th-century. But they’re just silly exercises at this point, speed-dating for Americans who lack focus and critical-thinking skills. These candidates have been on every screen in our lives for two election cycles. Three 90-minute shout-fests shouldn’t override what we’ve seen from them for six years.
Things obviously went much better for President Obama last night. He was forceful and lively, but Mitt Romney really made it easy for him. Too many rookie mistakes for someone making his final charge at the Oval Office.
Romney’s line during his closing statements about caring for 100% of the American people provided Obama with the exclamation point of the night. I would assume that Romney’s team decided to go with this line because they thought Obama would barrage him with “47%” references this time after failing to mention Romney’s gaffe at the first debate. But Obama again never raised the issue, so Romney should have pivoted away from any talk of percentages.
Rudeness and aggression throws Obama for a loop in public settings. Mitt Romney is likewise flustered when challenged on facts. He becomes inarticulate. How dare someone contradict the boss!
I guess it’s a sign of our polarized times, but not only do the two candidates apparently despise each other, but their families also seem to intensely dislike each other.
Undecided voters aren’t the first people to fold their umbrellas when the rain stops. Do not put them on TV after the debates.