• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Romney campaign admits it - They're in big trouble

S

Spot the Wonder

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
2,864
Reaction score
399
Location
The Peak, bitches
The Romney campaign, while pleasantly surprised by Obama’s lackluster prime-time performance, said the post-convention bounce they hoped for fell well short of expectations and privately lament that state-by-state polling numbers — most glaringly in Ohio — are working in the president’s favor.

Two officials intimately involved in the GOP campaign said Ohio leans clearly in Obama’s favor now, with a high single-digit edge, based on their internal tracking numbers of conservative groups.
Click to expand...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/80949.html#ixzz25ySjewsy

I personally did not find Obama's performance to be lackluster, but they're still trying to spin. I guess the campaign is still looking for it's convention bounce. I can't believe they put these kind of expectations out there.

enhanced-buzz-24812-1344623134-12.jpeg

enhanced-buzz-5870-1344623138-11.jpeg


I wonder if the Ohio news explains this

Yet for reasons that his advisors declined to discuss, Romney has ceded the advertising airwaves to Obama over the last week in Ohio and other battleground states. I suspect he'll be back on, and may already be. His campaign was to start a $100 million 'carpeting bombing' in 10 key swing states. He has to win Ohio.
 
Last edited:
Nobody with a clue would use average bumps going back to 1976. That's laughable. Unless they think there is a possibility of a candidate winning 49 states of course. Bumps have declined dramatically.

What's worse is that metric only uses elections in which an incumbent was running so it only looks at 76, 80, 84, 92, 96, and 04. The second most recent data point was from 16 years and 4 cycles ago. Annoyingly stupid.

Instead Romney effectively got no bump and Obama will get a substantial one that may be muted a little by the jobs report.

I think Obama's speech was only a let down compared to the Dems greatly exceeding expectations earlier in the week.
 
It is not looking good for Romney, that is for sure. But I don't think the EC split will be 100 Votes....that would be a pretty monstrous margin.
 
Wrangor said:
It is not looking good for Romney, that is for sure. But I don't think the EC split will be 100 Votes....that would be a pretty monstrous margin.
Click to expand...

I think you might want to look at some polls and do some math. I'd be interested in seeing your EC analysis.
 
The pick of Ryan was the first indication that Romney was very scared. If he thought he was close or ahead, he would have taken the safer pick of Pawlenty or Portman.

If he stays strictly on his notes in public and in debates, the margin will widen.
 
Romney's only chance is Obama completely shitting the bed between now and election day. Even if that happens, Romney will probably still lose.
 
Romney's got serious problems for sure. He has a vary tough road to travel, and even if most things break right for him. he might still not win. Furthermore, he can't much count on any big blunders from Obama at this point.
 
he didn't beat bill. he beat someone that people think is a cunt.
 
Hillary woluld have won easily against anyone other than Obama. Had her campaign not screwed up early, she'd be POTUS now.
 
The GOP will have to do some serious soul searching if they lose this election. They nominated a stiff/awkward candidate and forced him to adopt far right policies to get through the primaries. Mitt would have been a better general election candidate if he had run as a pragmatic problem solving Governor from a deeply blue state. Nothing can make Romney more comfortable in his own skin, but the current GOP policies make an evolving electoral map even more challenging.

GOP hardliners like Santorum/Huckabee/Bachmann will blame a Romney loss on nominating a moderate and there will be a push to put a social conservative at the top of the ticket in 2016 rather than the VP slot like in 2008 and 2012. Problem is that the same GOP policies will make the 2016 electoral map even more stark for the GOP.
 
Rube, when Romney chose Ryan I thought he was throwing in the towel and trying to help the Bush wing of the party. Romney would go hard right and say, "see the public is against this."

At the same time, what you are saying could also happen. If the Tea Party stays in control, they could take the party hard right for 2016. If they do, there won't be a moderate in the VP slot. They will say,"look at McCain and Romney. They lost. We need a real conservative."

The 2016 GOP primary season is likely not to be for feint of heart.

You are correct the GOP does need to follow the reason of Jeb Bush or alienate Hispanics for at least the next twenty years and become exclusively the party of rural and southern America.
 
Demographics affect the electoral map, but also the makeup of the GOP. In marginalizing Ron Paul's delegates (which skew younger), the GOP makes itself older and closer to irrelevance. If they lose in 2012 and 2016, a Dem President will replace Ginsburg (79), Kennedy (76), Scalia (75), and Breyer (74). That will shift the balance of the court to 6-3 liberals, with the 6 liberals being the youngest members of the court.
 
bobknightfan said:
Agreed that there is a difference. Still, he had to beat Bill, too, because he was doing everything he could to help her. Still, the point is the same as far as Obama's political abilities. He had to overcome the massive political disadvantge of 1) being an African-American candidate trying to do what had never before been done and, 2) having the middle name of "Hussein" in a country that had become heavily prejudiced against people with a name like that.
Click to expand...

I think Obama ran a very good campaign in 2008. The race was his to lose, and he didn't lose it. No doubt some voted against him for being Black but many voted for him due to his race as well. I remember moving to Virginia in early January 1990, when Doug Wilder was about to be inaugurated as the first Black governor of Virginia. Many people I talked to said they voted for Wilder because they though that it was just time to have a Black governor and Wilder seemed like an OK guy. People often want to feel that they are a part of important events, and electing the first Black anything, especially governor or president, is an important event. I think, Obama got a good many votes like that too in 2008, and with the Black vote that proved to be more than enough to balance out any anti-Black vote. Plus, he was also lucky, or the beneficiary of good timing. The 'Pubs were in the pits after W.
 
FuckmouthedRube said:
The GOP will have to do some serious soul searching if they lose this election. They nominated a stiff/awkward candidate and forced him to adopt far right policies to get through the primaries. Mitt would have been a better general election candidate if he had run as a pragmatic problem solving Governor from a deeply blue state. Nothing can make Romney more comfortable in his own skin, but the current GOP policies make an evolving electoral map even more challenging.

GOP hardliners like Santorum/Huckabee/Bachmann will blame a Romney loss on nominating a moderate and there will be a push to put a social conservative at the top of the ticket in 2016 rather than the VP slot like in 2008 and 2012. Problem is that the same GOP policies will make the 2016 electoral map even more stark for the GOP.
Click to expand...

Good post. McCain was fairly well liked among moderates and liberals going into the election. Romney is what republicans vilify Crist for being, a political chameleon.
 
Romney should do some photo ops having beers with American labor and listening to their issues. Oh yeah, he can't have a beer.

Do we really want a president who can't drink a beer, or maybe a nice California wine, or a Kentucky bourbon? really?
 
sailordeac said:
I think Obama ran a very good campaign in 2008. The race was his to lose, and he didn't lose it. No doubt some voted against him for being Black but many voted for him due to his race as well. I remember moving to Virginia in early January 1990, when Doug Wilder was about to be inaugurated as the first Black governor of Virginia. Many people I talked to said they voted for Wilder because they though that it was just time to have a Black governor and Wilder seemed like an OK guy. People often want to feel that they are a part of important events, and electing the first Black anything, especially governor or president, is an important event. I think, Obama got a good many votes like that too in 2008, and with the Black vote that proved to be more than enough to balance out any anti-Black vote. Plus, he was also lucky, or the beneficiary of good timing. The 'Pubs were in the pits after W.
Click to expand...

Remarkable that was only 22 years ago. At the time, the Country Club of Virginia didn't allow black members, yet the Governor was granted an automatic membership. After a lot of posturing, CCV decided to offer him a membership. He told them to go fuck themselves.
 
WakeandBake said:
Romney should do some photo ops having beers with American labor and listening to their issues. Oh yeah, he can't have a beer.

Do we really want a president who can't drink a beer, or maybe a nice California wine, or a Kentucky bourbon? really?
Click to expand...


He could have a non-alcoholic beer. That might be worth a few votes. Well, maybe not.
 
WakeandBake said:
Romney should do some photo ops having beers with American labor and listening to their issues. Oh yeah, he can't have a beer.

Do we really want a president who can't drink a beer, or maybe a nice California wine, or a Kentucky bourbon? really?
Click to expand...

I want a president who's so awesome that he brews his own fucking beer!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top