General Election: Romney vs. Obama

[rightwinger]

Romney seems to have a rather low ceiling--and it's right about where Obama's floor is.

The fact that the best he could do coming out of his convention was a (brief) tie should worry his people.

It gets worse with electoral votes.

Romneys ceiling looks to be about 285 while Obamas floor seems to be around 250. Not much margin for error for Romney

 

[Mac1958]

.

Interesting read:

Niall Ferguson: Why Obama Is Winning - Newsweek and The Daily Beast

Ferguson offers four theories for Obama's lead. Mine is that people are looking at their choices, they like Obama personally more than Romney, and they're not convinced Romney has the answers. Obama's primary question, "do you really want to go back to the ideas that got us here?", is perfectly reasonable. And believe it or not, there are some reasonable people out there, folks who aren't paralyzed by partisanship.

We'll see, huh? I just want this over with.

.

In key swing states there are still people who are reluctant to return to the Bush years. Unless Romney is able to convince voters that he is offering a significant change....he will lose

Significant change not only from Obama but from what got us here. How in the world does he communicate something like that?

.

 

[beretta304]

Romney seems to have a rather low ceiling--and it's right about where Obama's floor is.

The fact that the best he could do coming out of his convention was a (brief) tie should worry his people.

It gets worse with electoral votes.

Romneys ceiling looks to be about 285 while Obamas floor seems to be around 250. Not much margin for error for Romney

We had this debate about the Electoral College. Bottom line...it needs to be revamped.

We can't continue to have elections when only a few states matter.


I believe it was Dissent who said that he wasn't voting for either party since his state is a blue state and it doesn't matter. He made a good point why the system needs revision.

 

[rightwinger]

Romney seems to have a rather low ceiling--and it's right about where Obama's floor is.

The fact that the best he could do coming out of his convention was a (brief) tie should worry his people.

It gets worse with electoral votes.

Romneys ceiling looks to be about 285 while Obamas floor seems to be around 250. Not much margin for error for Romney

We had this debate about the Electoral College. Bottom line...it needs to be revamped.

We can't continue to have elections when only a few states matter.


I believe it was Dissent who said that he wasn't voting for either party since his state is a blue state and it doesn't matter. He made a good point why the system needs revision.

We had this debate after Bush/Gore 2000

The Constitution is not going to change. The small states won't allow it

 

[beretta304]

It gets worse with electoral votes.

Romneys ceiling looks to be about 285 while Obamas floor seems to be around 250. Not much margin for error for Romney

We had this debate about the Electoral College. Bottom line...it needs to be revamped.

We can't continue to have elections when only a few states matter.


I believe it was Dissent who said that he wasn't voting for either party since his state is a blue state and it doesn't matter. He made a good point why the system needs revision.

We had this debate after Bush/Gore 2000

The Constitution is not going to change. The small states won't allow it

That may be true so we all better get used to anywhere from 5-10 states electing the President from here on out.

There are no Reagans on the horizon in either party.

 

[AceRothstein]

.

Robert Samuelson also has an interesting piece this morning, and it's actually similar to Ferguson's:

The pessimism and frustration define the debate. It's less about whether you're better off now than four years ago and more about whether you believe things will get better. Or put differently: Do Americans believe Obama has lost control of events, justifying a change at the top?

Crazy as it sounds, not everyone votes based simply on the letter after a candidate's name. Go figure! There are still people who are not convinced that Romney is the guy. Seems to me that, with unemployment still over 8%, that's the most likely answer for Obama's lead.

.

I would also add what about one fact that plays enormously in Obama's favor...the African American vote.

He has 100% support. Those blacks willing to admit that they won't vote for him is so small is doesn't statistically register. Will they turn out is another matter.

The issue is the economy and jobs. The unemployment rate in the African American is much higher than the national average.

Obama should be trailing. I've heard the "if the Republicans had a better candidate" argument. Who or what constitutes a better candidate?


Not everyone will vote based on the letter after a candidate's name but we have indications that one bloc of voters will vote based on the color of the candidate's skin.

The African American vote is always highly skewed towards Dems, regardless of the skin color of their candidate. I do suspect that the voter turnout amongst African Americans will be slightly down this year compared to 2008.

 

[beretta304]

.

Robert Samuelson also has an interesting piece this morning, and it's actually similar to Ferguson's:

The pessimism and frustration define the debate. It's less about whether you're better off now than four years ago and more about whether you believe things will get better. Or put differently: Do Americans believe Obama has lost control of events, justifying a change at the top?

Crazy as it sounds, not everyone votes based simply on the letter after a candidate's name. Go figure! There are still people who are not convinced that Romney is the guy. Seems to me that, with unemployment still over 8%, that's the most likely answer for Obama's lead.

.

I would also add what about one fact that plays enormously in Obama's favor...the African American vote.

He has 100% support. Those blacks willing to admit that they won't vote for him is so small is doesn't statistically register. Will they turn out is another matter.

The issue is the economy and jobs. The unemployment rate in the African American is much higher than the national average.

Obama should be trailing. I've heard the "if the Republicans had a better candidate" argument. Who or what constitutes a better candidate?


Not everyone will vote based on the letter after a candidate's name but we have indications that one bloc of voters will vote based on the color of the candidate's skin.

The African American vote is always highly skewed towards Dems, regardless of the skin color of their candidate. I do suspect that the voter turnout amongst African Americans will be slightly down this year compared to 2008.

But you've made my original point. African Americans will vote again for Obama and many because of his skin color.

What percentage do you think will be higher? Whites voting for Obama or Blacks voting for Romney.

So to ignore the racial component of the election is to stick one's head in the sand.

Issues aside, right there is a big factor for Romney to overcome even if African American turnout is down.

Naturally I'm a racist for pointing out the truth.

 

[rightwinger]

We had this debate about the Electoral College. Bottom line...it needs to be revamped.

We can't continue to have elections when only a few states matter.


I believe it was Dissent who said that he wasn't voting for either party since his state is a blue state and it doesn't matter. He made a good point why the system needs revision.

We had this debate after Bush/Gore 2000

The Constitution is not going to change. The small states won't allow it

That may be true so we all better get used to anywhere from 5-10 states electing the President from here on out.

There are no Reagans on the horizon in either party.

If we went to a straight popular vote, then population centers like California, New York, Texas and Florida would get most of the attention

States like Iowa and New Hampshire would be ignored

 

[beretta304]

We had this debate after Bush/Gore 2000

The Constitution is not going to change. The small states won't allow it

That may be true so we all better get used to anywhere from 5-10 states electing the President from here on out.

There are no Reagans on the horizon in either party.

If we went to a straight popular vote, then population centers like California, New York, Texas and Florida would get most of the attention

States like Iowa and New Hampshire would be ignored

I didn't say popular vote. I don't know what type of system would work but what we have now is similar to what you just mentioned...now it's swing states that get the attention.

Some hybrid is what's needed and the details are beyond me at this point.

Maybe a split of the electoral votes... Who knows? I admit that I don't.

What I do know is that I don't like my vote not making a difference. I live in NJ. As Dissent pointed out, why vote? Unlike him, I will vote but what difference will it make?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Do the electoral vote by congressional districts and give the popular winner both of the senators' electoral votes.

 

[beretta304]

Do the electoral vote by congressional districts and give the popular winner both of the senators' electoral votes.

Anything is an improvement over what we have. Am I the only Romney supporter living in a Blue State that realizes their vote isn't likely to make much difference.

Again, the election will be determined by a handful of states.


That's not a viable system any longer. It may have worked in 18th, 19th and the early part of the 20th centuries but the demographics have changed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am sure that most Pubs in blue states and Dems in red states feel like you.

I am sure the Pubs and Dems controlling those states are going to do nothing that hurts their chances to control the state for the party.

 

[rightwinger]

That may be true so we all better get used to anywhere from 5-10 states electing the President from here on out.

There are no Reagans on the horizon in either party.

If we went to a straight popular vote, then population centers like California, New York, Texas and Florida would get most of the attention

States like Iowa and New Hampshire would be ignored

I didn't say popular vote. I don't know what type of system would work but what we have now is similar to what you just mentioned...now it's swing states that get the attention.

Some hybrid is what's needed and the details are beyond me at this point.

Maybe a split of the electoral votes... Who knows? I admit that I don't.

What I do know is that I don't like my vote not making a difference. I live in NJ. As Dissent pointed out, why vote? Unlike him, I will vote but what difference will it make?

I live in NJ also

It highlights how much impact the presidential race has on all races. Voters say "My state is voting for the other guy, so I will just stay home. My vote doesn't matter"

What it does is it keeps voters away from the Congressional races as well as county and local.

 

[beretta304]

I am sure that most Pubs in blue states and Dems in red states feel like you.

I am sure the Pubs and Dems controlling those states are going to do nothing that hurts their chances to control the state for the party.

I agree which is why in part election turnout has been on the decline. Many take the position like Dissent does....why bother. Can't blame them.

 

[beretta304]

If we went to a straight popular vote, then population centers like California, New York, Texas and Florida would get most of the attention

States like Iowa and New Hampshire would be ignored

I didn't say popular vote. I don't know what type of system would work but what we have now is similar to what you just mentioned...now it's swing states that get the attention.

Some hybrid is what's needed and the details are beyond me at this point.

Maybe a split of the electoral votes... Who knows? I admit that I don't.

What I do know is that I don't like my vote not making a difference. I live in NJ. As Dissent pointed out, why vote? Unlike him, I will vote but what difference will it make?

I live in NJ also

It highlights how much impact the presidential race has on all races. Voters say "My state is voting for the other guy, so I will just stay home. My vote doesn't matter"

What it does is it keeps voters away from the Congressional races as well as county and local.

And that's another unfortunate aspect.

 

[AceRothstein]

I would also add what about one fact that plays enormously in Obama's favor...the African American vote.

He has 100% support. Those blacks willing to admit that they won't vote for him is so small is doesn't statistically register. Will they turn out is another matter.

The issue is the economy and jobs. The unemployment rate in the African American is much higher than the national average.

Obama should be trailing. I've heard the "if the Republicans had a better candidate" argument. Who or what constitutes a better candidate?


Not everyone will vote based on the letter after a candidate's name but we have indications that one bloc of voters will vote based on the color of the candidate's skin.

The African American vote is always highly skewed towards Dems, regardless of the skin color of their candidate. I do suspect that the voter turnout amongst African Americans will be slightly down this year compared to 2008.

But you've made my original point. African Americans will vote again for Obama and many because of his skin color.

What percentage do you think will be higher? Whites voting for Obama or Blacks voting for Romney.

So to ignore the racial component of the election is to stick one's head in the sand.

Issues aside, right there is a big factor for Romney to overcome even if African American turnout is down.

Naturally I'm a racist for pointing out the truth.

African Americans ALWAYS, since the late 60's, vote Dem in large numbers. They have before Obama and will continue to do so after him. It has nothing to do with the color of his skin.

Whites voting for Obama will certainly be a higher number. Again, I don't think the numbers will skew that far off from previously elections though.

 

[beretta304]

The African American vote is always highly skewed towards Dems, regardless of the skin color of their candidate. I do suspect that the voter turnout amongst African Americans will be slightly down this year compared to 2008.

But you've made my original point. African Americans will vote again for Obama and many because of his skin color.

What percentage do you think will be higher? Whites voting for Obama or Blacks voting for Romney.

So to ignore the racial component of the election is to stick one's head in the sand.

Issues aside, right there is a big factor for Romney to overcome even if African American turnout is down.

Naturally I'm a racist for pointing out the truth.

African Americans ALWAYS, since the late 60's, vote Dem in large numbers. They have before Obama and will continue to do so after him. It has nothing to do with the color of his skin.

Whites voting for Obama will certainly be a higher number. Again, I don't think the numbers will skew that far off from previously elections though.

I beg to differ. Having support along racial lines in this case clearly gives Obama a big advantage.


Exit polls: How Obama won - David Paul Kuhn - POLITICO.com


"Obama became the first Democrat to also win a majority since Jimmy Carter with the near-unanimous backing of blacks and the overwhelming support of youth as well as significant inroads with white men and strong support among Hispanics and educated voters."


Now if he loses support among the other demographics then he has problems. But all things being equal the racial component most certainly is a big plus for Obama without him exerting much effort to get it.


That and the fact that a handful of states will control the outcome, I think it's almost a lock for Obama unless something changes drastically by election day.




Let me phrase it differently.

If both candidates were the same race would one candidate dominate to this extent over the other among African Americans? I would argue no. Their vote would be more dispersed. In Obama's case his skin color does give him that advatnage(among African Americans) which is certainly a disadvatage to Romney.

 

[AceRothstein]

But you've made my original point. African Americans will vote again for Obama and many because of his skin color.

What percentage do you think will be higher? Whites voting for Obama or Blacks voting for Romney.

So to ignore the racial component of the election is to stick one's head in the sand.

Issues aside, right there is a big factor for Romney to overcome even if African American turnout is down.

Naturally I'm a racist for pointing out the truth.

African Americans ALWAYS, since the late 60's, vote Dem in large numbers. They have before Obama and will continue to do so after him. It has nothing to do with the color of his skin.

Whites voting for Obama will certainly be a higher number. Again, I don't think the numbers will skew that far off from previously elections though.

I beg to differ. Having support along racial lines in this case clearly gives Obama a big advantage.



"Obama became the first Democrat to also win a majority since Jimmy Carter with the near-unanimous backing of blacks and the overwhelming support of youth as well as significant inroads with white men and strong support among Hispanics and educated voters."


Now if he loses support among the other demographics then he has problems. But all things being equal the racial component most certainly is a big plus for Obama without him exerting much effort to get it.


That and the fact that a handful of states will control the outcome, I think it's almost a lock for Obama unless something changes drastically by election day.




Let me phrase it differently.

If both candidates were the same race would one candidate dominate to this extent over the other among African Americans? I would argue no. Their vote would be more dispersed. In Obama's case his skin color does give him that advatage which is certainly a disadvatage to Romney.

Here is the percentage of the black vote that the Dem candidate received in 5 of the last 7 elections. I didn't include the 2 elections with a 3rd party candidate who had an impact on the overall numbers.

1984 - 91%
1988 - 89%
2000 - 90%
2004 - 88%
2008 - 95%

Obama's percentage was a slight bump over the others but it wasn't anything more than a few percentage points.

 

[beretta304]

African Americans ALWAYS, since the late 60's, vote Dem in large numbers. They have before Obama and will continue to do so after him. It has nothing to do with the color of his skin.

Whites voting for Obama will certainly be a higher number. Again, I don't think the numbers will skew that far off from previously elections though.

I beg to differ. Having support along racial lines in this case clearly gives Obama a big advantage.



Thanks for that. The only thing I can say is that the media reports are greatly exaggerated and it helped clear up my understanding as well.


I knew as a group they voted Democrat but I was under the impression that it was larger percenatge of the overall total but it seems from one artilce that as a whole they comprise 13% of the total.


"Obama became the first Democrat to also win a majority since Jimmy Carter with the near-unanimous backing of blacks and the overwhelming support of youth as well as significant inroads with white men and strong support among Hispanics and educated voters."


Now if he loses support among the other demographics then he has problems. But all things being equal the racial component most certainly is a big plus for Obama without him exerting much effort to get it.


That and the fact that a handful of states will control the outcome, I think it's almost a lock for Obama unless something changes drastically by election day.




Let me phrase it differently.

If both candidates were the same race would one candidate dominate to this extent over the other among African Americans? I would argue no. Their vote would be more dispersed. In Obama's case his skin color does give him that advatage which is certainly a disadvatage to Romney.

Here is the percentage of the black vote that the Dem candidate received in 5 of the last 7 elections. I didn't include the 2 elections with a 3rd party candidate who had an impact on the overall numbers.

1984 - 91%
1988 - 89%
2000 - 90%
2004 - 88%
2008 - 95%

Obama's percentage was a slight bump over the others but it wasn't anything more than a few percentage points.

Very enlightening indeed. But I would still think that at 95% in 2008 there has to be a contingent that did vote along racial lines since there was a 7% increase from 2004. If you look at the prior elections it stayed in a narrower band.

If that trend holds true, it will be just as much a problem for Romney as it was for McCain...maybe more since McCain was more likable overall.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

As I said before, polls do not matter, especially at this point. I posted this link because a certain someone here was wetting herself with glee because she thought Obama was going to run away with it because he was up a few points. It's still neck and neck and we haven't even had the debates yet.

Kickin' Ass With
BARACK!!! ​

. . . . . . ​